Full text of "Surveys for animal species of concern in sage and grassland landscapes in Montana"

See other formats

Surveys for Animal Species
of Concern in Sage and Grassland
Landscapes in Montana

Prepared For:

Montana Department of Fish. Wildlife & Parts
State Wildlife Grants Program
Helena, Kbntana

Compiled By:

Susan Lenaid

Montana Natural Heritage Program

Nilural Resource Information Syslcm

Montana Slate Library

May 2005

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

Surveys for Animal Species of Concern
in Sage and Grassland Landscapes in Montana

Pit pain) for

Monmiu Department of Fish- Wildlife Jt Park*

Suuc Wildlife Grans Prog ran

Compiled by:
Susai Lciuni

Momaaa Xatiral Heritage Pai»ra«i

Natural Resource liformuiion Sysicm

Montana Slale Libmiy

May 2005

MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

lMON 1 * ** I

T State
Library

/A il u O V t A > *

•\* Natural Resource
^}AW Information System

O 2005 Montana Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Bos 20 1800. 15 15 East Sixih Avenue, Helena, MT 59620-1800,406-4+4-3655

This document shoald be cited as:

Lenard. S., compiler 2005. Surveys for Animal Species of Concern in Sage aid Grassland Landscapes
in Montana. At unpublished rcpon <o the Montana Department of Fish. Wildlife & Parks, State Wildlife
C ranis Program. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, Moniuna. 63pp.

SUMMARY

Four projects conducted is grass and sage habitats in
eastern Montana in 2003 and 2004 10 document (he
presence of Montana Species of Concert were made
possible by a gram from the State Wildlife Grants
Program administered by tic Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFVYP). En addiion
toiargct species. a)J other encountered species of
concern were documented during field activity.
Project activity occurred from March through
Octoberof each ycanthctiming for each project
was appropriate to the breeding season of the species
ib quest ioi. orto a time that was. most conducive for
assessing targeted species activity.

Oic-hu id red-two bird point cointswere conducted
ii June 2004 to survey for grassland birds on the
Gordon Ranch in Blaine County. Montana, an
approximately 15,000 acre ranch on which the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parts
holds a conservation easement. Surveys were
conducted on pastures of twodiffereni grazing
regimes: rested and grazed. Of the fifty*! wo species
of birds recorded on the ranch, eleven were slate
species of concern. Several species of concern were
the most abundant of all birds encountered on the
property.

Strveys were performed in sixty-two sites in
Sheridan. Roosevelt and Daniels counties to
document distribution of four species of concern
specific to that area of the state. The four targeted
species include Yellow R&iH dnttnumps
ntwfboraefttfisy* Sedge Wren (CisUrlfufnts
frltitea&h)* Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow
iAmmt ni ramus whf?n!y* and LeContc's Sparrow
{Amtturd ramus lecoiOeiiy The surveys were
conducted between June 2 and July 24 of 2004. The
initial surveys occurred early in June, with follow-up
surveys to document breeding evidence in mid-to-
latc July. Three of the targeted species were
documented during the survey period. Seventeen
additional species of concern in Montana were
identified during the surveys: fifteen bird species,
one frog and one snake species.

Aerial surveys were conducted in soul heastern
Montana during 200i to document black-tailed
{Cymxnyx Jutkn'iriitinij) urn] white-tailed prairie dog
iCynomys Uttcurui) activity. The study area for this
project consisted of three distinct survey locations in
the southeastern portion of the state; the primary*
survey area extended from the Montana/Wyoming

state line north to the Charles M.Russell <CMR>
National Wildlife Refuge along ihe Missouri Riven
and from the Montana/North Dakota and South
Dakota stale lines west lo the line formed by
Highways87, 19. and 191. The second survey area
included land southwest and nonhwest of Roundup
in Yellowstone. Wheatland. Golden Valley,
Stillwater, and Musselshell Counties. The third area
included portions of Carbon County where while-
tailed prairie dogs arc known to exist. Nearly 1800
black-tailed prairie dog colonies were recorded
during more than one hundred thirty hours of flight
time. All were generally located in distinct
geographic areas, with approximately half of I he
colonies lessihan ten acres in size. New while-
tailed prairie dog colonics were identified in
southern Carbon County, but on-the-ground
verification will be needed to confirm activity.

Surveys were conducted for small mammal species
of concern on sage- dominated habitats in
Beaverhead. Carbon. Custer, Garfield. Petroleum.
Powder River. Powell, Prairie, and Valley coin lies
from Junethrough Octoberof 2003 and 2004. Eighi
different species of small mammals were caught
over the course of 3600 bait-trap and 230 pitfall irap
nights. This project was designed specifically to
provide information on the distribution of four small
mammal state species of concern; Preble's Shrew
{Soiwx prwbid). Dwarf Shrew (S<*rex nanus).
Mcrriam's Shrew i$m*x mertiitmih Great Basin
Pocket Mousc(/V/T'£ffur/fff.T/wri'«Mj,und other
sagebrush associated small mammals in the stale of
Montana.

As a small side- project, informal ion on the Blue-
gray Gtulcalchcr(/Wj7j/jft7a ear rti/fr/). a state
species of concern, was gathered during 200i
breeding season. This species is rare to the state and
of limited distribution. )l has been reported from
only three locations in Montana (Pryor Mountains,
West by. and the northeast corner of Foit Peck
Reservoir) over a total of thirteen separate
documented observations (MB D 2005). Limited
information is available on nesting events in ihe
state, and as the Heritage program staff was involved
in another project in ihe general area, they took ihe
opportunity to investigate ihe presence of Blue-gray
Gnatcatchcrsin one of the known areas of
occurence in orderto understand their breeding
stains.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mi mi :: . ry I

Introduction ...*5

Stc llcin J. Birds of the Cordon Ranch* Blaine County. Montana «...«7

Section 2. Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow, LeContc*s Sparrow, Yellow Haii and Sedge Wren in

Sheridan, Roosevelt, and Daniels County, Montana .25

Section 3. Results of an Aerial Sirvcy for Black -tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog Colonies in
SoitheasLcrn Montana 35

Section 4. Montana Small Mammal Sirvcys in Sagebrush Habitats 49

INTRODUCTION

For decades, Montana's sagebrush and prairie
lands have bcci convened to other uses, resulting
in ever-diminishing acreage and quality of habitat
Tor the species that inhabit this unique landscape.
The events in Montana arc mirrored around the
globe; grasslands are identified as one of the
most imperiled ecosystems in the world (Sanson
and Kiopf 1996). In addition to being
fragmented by agrkiltuml convention, much of
the remaining native grass and sage lands arc
being degraded by poor management or
com in ted alteration through mechanical and
chemical (principally for sagebrush removal)
activities. The greatest limiting factors in
managing these lands for the long-term bencfil of
native species is lack of specific informal ion on
the diversity, distribution (current and historic),
and reqiircments of the species utilizing these
habitats. Gaining a better undemanding of the
array of species t hat depend ipon onr prairie
lands, and the dynamic interactions between
them, will help direct management efforts toward
their sustained existence. This collection of
projects was designed to gather distribution
information (and breeding status, where possible)
forscvcral state species of concern in sage and
grassland habitats of eastern Montana.

Funding forthts project was provided tothe
Montana Natl ral Heritage Program by the
Montana Dcpaitment of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks
throigh the Stale Wildlife Grants Program. The
State Wildlife Grams(SWG) progiam was
created by congressionally appropriated funds to
assist states in the development and
implementation of progiamsthat benefit wildlife
and their habitats. Information gathered timing
ihese projects has been incorporated into
databases maintained by the Montana Natural
Heritage Program.

This document contains four separate reports on
animal species of concern in Montana. These
individual projects were designed 10 address gaps
in onr knowledge about sage and grass species in
Montana. Targeted speciesof concern included
several endemic grassland bird species,
sagcbnsh and grassland associated mammals,
and bin) species associated with unique wetland

habitats located within the grassland matrix of
the northeastern corner of the state. Additionally,
other species of concert encointered during
these surveys were documented.

Lands in eastern Moniana support a unique array
of breeding grassland bird species found only in
the Noithern Great Plains: the importance of ihis
habitat Ibra host of endemic species cannot be
overstated. Unfortunately, fragmentation and
degradation of this habitat which is critical to the
sirvivalof nine primary prairie bird species, and
nearly twenty more secondary species, continues.
Remnant pieces of native prairie have
increasingly become more important to i Ins
collection of prairie specific breeders.
Recognizing this importance, the Montana
Department of Fish. Wildlife & Parks secured a
conservation easement on a si/able ranch in
northern Blaine Cointy. The report included in
this document describes a point count survey
project conducted by the Montana Natural
Heritage Program in June of 2004. The survey
was designed to document the diversity and
general abundance of prairie bin) species on the
ranch in grazed and rested pastures.

Four bird species of concern were identified for
snrvcy in the grasslands of Northeastern
Montana. Each of these species is considered
rare in the stale (less than 20 documented
obscrvations)(MBD 2005). All fonrofthese
target species arc known to utilize specific
wetland locations within Nonheasiern Montana's
grasslands, but little information is available
about their breeding status or the full extent of
their distribution in this area; LcContc's
{ AitwurrfrafMi* tcconteiii (G4,S I S2B ) and
Nelson's Sharp-tailed SpanowsiAmnwdrcmut*
nehani) {G5 SIB) have been documented as
breeding at least once while no direct evidence of
breeding has been recorded for Yellow Rail
( CtrltirriU'Ofrx mtvefatWitc finis) IG4.S1 B) or
Sedge Wren (Chtoifx>rutpiaieftsi*)iG5SlB}
(MBD2005). The purpose of this study was to
document distribution and gal her evidence of
breeding for these species in Sheridan, Roosevelt
and Daniels Counties.

Long considered a pest in compel ii ion with caule
Tor ningcland resources, prairie dogs have been
I he focus of eradication programs designed 10
reduce their numbcis across the Great Plains as
early asthc ISKOs Greatly reduced in nimbcr
and distribution throughout ihcir raBgcthc
species has only recently beet recogni/ed as an
integral component of a health) functioning
prairie ecosystem (Foresman 2001 ). A myriad of
prairie species depend upon 1 he presence of
prairie dog colonies for habitat and a source of
food. The appearance of sy I vatic plague is
Montana in 1 he mid- 1980s sparked concent over
the status of black-tailed (Cynomyx ludoiriciamis)
(G4.S3iand while-tailed prairie dogslCvrawiyj
fetwunts) (GASi kacmss the siale (FaunaWesi
1999). Subsequent investigations into the full
extent and Glacis of existing prairie dog colonies
in Montana, however, were hampered by limited
access to lands that required permission, from
private landowiets. This Included both private
and public lands. Since a petition to list the
species tnderthe Endangered Species Aci in
2000 resided in a finding of ^warranted but
precluded", increasing attention has beet focused
ob gaining a better understanding of the viability
of prairie dog populations across 1 heir historic
range* Oir pioject was designed to use aerial
surveys to catalogue extant prairie dog colonies
in southeastern Montana, allowing coverage of
lands otherwise preclided from inventor;. The
project was envisioned to give the most complete
assessment of activity of both prairie dog species
aciuss the greatest known area of occupancy in
the Mate*

Finally, between 29 May and 10 June 2004.
investigations into Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
(Ptriiitpfita caeruleaiiG5 ,$\&) activity in Bear
Caiyon,Pryor Mot n talis, revealed a total of five
pairs and one lone male individual. Breeding
evidence was documented with two nests,
accointing for the eleventh and twelfth
documented nesting events by the species in the
state. During the field survey. Blown- headed
C ow buds {Mtriothrux ate r) were also observed,

(the first time the species was recorded in this
area) and parasitism of a nest of Blue-gray
gnatcatchcts was documented in 2003. This was
the first documentation of parasitism by Brown-
headed Cow birds on Blue-gray Gnatcatchcis in
the staie. Both of the nests were located in dead
sagebrush (Artemisia spf>.) measuring 175 and
245 c cm j meters in height, with the nests 94 and
140 cent j meters above ground, respectively.
Upon fitst discover), the first nest contained one
Blue-gray G natcatchcr egg and the second
contained three Blue-gray G natcatchcr eggs and
two Brown-headed Cowbird eggs. Examination:
the text day revealed the contents oftwo Blue-
gray Gnatcatcher eggs and oie Brown- headed
Cowbird egg . the second nests" contents were the
same as the previous day. No fin her information
on the fate of the nests is available as no fun her
visits were made to the site. Limited SWG funds
were used during this investigation as the
Montana Natural Heritage Program zoologist was
performing ot her work in the general locale.
Information on this project is limited to this
section , no report is attached.

Four species of small mammals associated with
sage bush habitats arc listed as species of
conservation concern in Montana: Preble's
Shrew iSorex pivbiri) (G4.S3J. Dwarf Shrew
(Sarrx i»mns)(G4*S2S3), McrriattTs Shirw
(S^/m wrriami) (G5.S3). aid Great Basin

Pocket Mouse iPerv&tuilku* /w/v«»> (C5,S2S3).
Bach species is identified as uncommon, rare, or
only locally common (Foresman 2001). As
limiccd information is available on the
distribution and abundance of these species in
Montana, and few specimens have been collected
in the slat e, we realized that targeted surveys
could contribute greatly to their conservation.

SKCTION 1

IUKDS OF THE GORDON RANCH, BLAINE COUNTY* MONTANA

Birds of the Gordon Ranch, Blaine County, Montana;
Point Count Survevs 2004

Prepared for

Moniaia Department of Fish. Wild Die & Parks

Helena, Montaia

By:
Siaan Lenard and Cob urn Currier

Montana Natu ral Heritage Program

Natural Resource Information System

Montana Slate Library

April 2005

SUMMARY

li Jmc 2004. point comt surveys were
conducted on the Gordon Cattle Company nonk
of Zi rick. Montana.'! recently acquired
conservation casement of tkc Montana
Derailment of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, to gather
baseline information on (he bird species of (he
property. The poini counts were coifincd toiwo
uiits comprising approximately 15,000 acres and
ideal i lied ibe bird communities present across
different grazing regimes in place on the ranch.
Of (he 52 species of birds documented 01 ibe
properly. 1 1 arc state Species of Concert, and
include Kami's Spanow {Anwurdmmu* hairdli).
Brewers Sparrow ISftizetto breweri). Burrowing
OwlMurfaw curactdaiia). Chest nil- col tared
Longspur [Calcarias ontafus). Franklin's Gill
t Larux friftixiutn). Lark Bunting {Cttt^tursfrizo
melanocor j r}. Loggerhead Shrike (Lattius
tttdvriciiituis). Long-billed Curlew {Numetiitts
a/nrricanux), McCown's Lou*spUT (Culcariut
mcconnti) r Spragnc's Pipit {Anthut spra&ueii),
and Swainson's Hawk {Butett swainsani)
IMTNHP 2004). An additional species, Shon-
earcd Owl (Asioff<tJttm<*ti*\ a species of potential
conservation concern, was also docimcnicd on
I he ranch. Tkis project was made possible by a
grant from (he State Wildlife Grunts Program
administered by Montana Department of Fish.
Wildlife and Park.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We I hank Jim Hansen and Rkk Nonbrupof ibe
Montana Department of Fish. Wild lite & Parks
for their assistance in tkc development and
realization of this project. We arc grateful for the
opponnnity to work on (he Gordon Cattle
Company property. Appreciation is extended lo
the Montana Dc]xinmeni of Fish, Wildlife &
Parks for 5W f C finding fortkis project. Pant
Hendricks contributed suggestions improving (his
document.

INTRODUCTION

Tkc grasslands of noil h-ccntral Montana lie in
l he heart of breeding habitat for a host of bird

species found only in the Northern Great Plains.
Eigkt of nine bird species endemic (o grasslands
breed on Montana's prairie lands. All of ibem
are classified as Stale Species of Concern by tkc
Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana
Fish. Wildlife A Parks (FWP), as well as Priority
Species of conservation concern by Montana
Partners in Flight (Casey 2000, MTNHP 2004).
An additional fifteen to twenty more- widespread
prairie bird species breed on these same lands
(Samson A Knopf 1996).

Population declines of prairie birds over ibe past
several decades have created an increased
awareness of the importance of tkese native
grasslands. To tkis end. FWP investigated ibe
opportunity to place tnder conservation easement
lands thai provide important breeding habitat to a
host of native grassland bird species.

DESCRIPTIONOF PROJECT

In 2004, FWP contracted the Montana Natural
Heritage Program to conduct point counts on a
recently acquired conservation easement parcel ii
north Blaine Cointy. The purpose of the project
was to develop baseline information on the
grassland birds of the propcity* The point coints
were conducted in mid- June on I he Gordon
Cattle Company Conservation Easemeni nonk of
Zurich. Montana and weic confined to two unils
comprising J5. 157 acres of ibe ranch. Asa
grazing system was in place on the ranch. FWP
requested that half of the points be located in
pastures that were tngra/ed ( rested } last year
(2003) and half I bat were grazed (grazed J late last
year.

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION

Located witkin tkc nonhcrn glaciated plains.
Blaine Cointy is generally dominated by a
landscape of mid and shon grasses. Tkc
dominant species present in ihe northern portion
of the county . where tkc Gorton Ranch is
located, include western wkcaigrassM^rwpvnwi
smi(hii), green needtegrass [Stifui viridula).
need Ic-and-t bread {Sti$xi ctmtaloK prairie
juncgiuss(AW/frj<ijmj<vY/'fifarJ. blue grama

{BitutfUnut z 'i.'i n'l <J . w inicjt.it i j 1 /.- . a .'. . ■. . i ■ ,
tttntt(a), and silver sagebrush [Artemisia carta).
The soils were formed in glacial till aid arc
nearly level to sleep, deep, shallow and well-
drained. The average annual precipitation ranges
from 10 id 14 inches, with a fmst- free season of
100 to 125 days. Rangcland and dryland farming
are the dominant land uses, with a few areas used
forirrigated cropstSoilConscrvation Service
1986).

METHODS

A. Projccl Design and Point Selection
Poiitson i he Gordon Ranch lands wen: si ratified
by grazing regime aid randomly selected. Two
ranch land units were visiicd during (his project,
the Bonier Unit and the Fifteen mile Unit. Based
upon information provided by FWP.the
Soithwesi and Middle West pastures of ihe
Border Unit were grazed early (mid-May to 3 1
July) in 2003. while the Mcridiai. Nonhwcst,
and Southeast pastures in ihisnnii were grazed
late in the season (August to early fall. 2003).
The two remainiig pastures in the Bolder Unit,
the Middle East and Northeast, as well as all
pastures within the Fiftccimilc Unit were tot
grazed in 2003.

Each randomly chosen point established ihe first
point of a three- point transect. The second and
third points were each located on the ground by
field persoinel by walking no less than 300
meters from the previous point, keeping the
points iu the same pasture/grazing treatment,
resulting in a total 3-poini I ransect distance of
approximately 600 meters. Global positioning
coordinates were recoided using Garmin GPS
unils(GP5map76)al each of the three points
along ihe transect. Transects weic oriented to
keep all points of a transect within a single
grazing unit (see Appendix A and B).

A total of 102 point counts were conducted oi
the Cordon Ranch during 21-29 June 2004.
Seventeen iransecisdhrce points each), a total of
51 point counts, were conducted it each of the
grazed and rested pastures.

Travel was restricted to existing roads and two-
tracks. No travel, other than by foot, occurred
cross-countiy. Vehicle under- carriages were
power-washed priorto survey work to remove
weed seedsthat may have beet present.

B. Point Count Methodology
All poini counts were ten minutes in duration aid
were completed within the first five hours after
sunrise. Each point count was conducted by
recording biids observed during lime inicrvalsof
zero to three minutes, three to five minutes, and
five to tei minutes. All birds delected visually
and/or aurally within a 100 meter radius circle
from the fixed transect point were recorded, with
each individual species documented with the
appropriate 4- letter AOU code, abundance noted,
and identified as observed within the 100-meter
circle, or outside (this includes birds that flew
overhead during the count interval). Counts
were not coiducted if continuous rain or high
winds were present.

RESULTS

A total of 43 species of biids were recorded
during grassland point couni work oi the Gordon
Ranch (see table 1). An additional nine species
were observed and documented oi the Gordon
Ranch during the field visit. Eleven of the 52
species documented on the property are state
species of concern , and include BainTs Spa now
{AmnuHiramut hairdii\ Brewer's Spanow
(Sfri&ffa bwhot). Burrowing Owl {Attfiwnc
cumadaria). Chestnut -collared Longspur
(Catcariux ornaiui). I raaklin s G Ull (Latm
jKff;\ttiri\ t Laft Bunting (C<tlarttf*sf>iz&
m*Ianacoryx\ Loggerhead Shrike {Lartiut
hidoviciamut)* Long-billed Curlew {Numotiut
«wett>aw«KMcCow h tt'sLongspir(C^ranW
meeowmi), Spraguc's Pipit {Anihut sftra&tteii).
and Swainson's Hawk {But*** swmruom)
(MTNHP 2004). An additional species. Short-
eared Owl {Arioflatttmeusi a species of potential
conservation coicen. was also documented on
the ranch. Twenty-two species are identified as
Priority Species by Montana Panne is it Flight
(Casey 2000), as species either in need of
conservation action (Ij. it need of monitoring
<ll).orof local concern (III) (Table I).

Direct evidence of bleeding was confirmed
(discovery of uciivc nms) for Chestnut-collared
Longspur.Cliff Swallow {Pttnrchtlldmt
pyrrfuwurlttK Homed Lark [Erwn&phiht
af/rcntisK McCown's Longspur. Northern
ShovclcrlAua* Wr/Awto). Red-winged Blackbird
(A&claius pbarniceus}, Swainson's Hawk. Sbarp-
tailed QlDBSC 1.7 'xmptunJchtfi phtttittnettust*

Vesper Sparrow (/Wwrm grammas), and
W . J I '. i ( Caloplropharus semipaimttlui ).
Breeding is presumed for otherspecies recorded
during ibe point counts as I he Tick) investor
occurred during the breeding season aid
observations included singing males and
territorial displays in appropriate breeding
kabilal.

Tabic I: Species list for (lord

on Ranch Proper!)

Species Common Name

Scientific Name

State SOC list
rank

MT PIFRank

American Avocel

Rti'titvMwstra imteticana

American Cix>w

Caevux bntehvrfivncfHM

America* Coot

huWca utttericana

American Kesircl"

hula* Mparvzrhis

\-:cml.i:. *A iuc-fEi

A tuts anericantt

BainJ s SpartX)w

ArttftinitruTftttt txtirdii

S2B

Ban Swallow

Hiruado fmtictt

Blue-winged Tea)

A tun dtxcftrs

Brewer's Blackbird

Euphafius cyam>cepf»ahts

Blew rr's Sparrow

SprzpIIa brvwrri

S2B

Brown-headed Cow bird

\i<?i*ilhrux 4ttrr

Burrowing Owl*

Atttttttw cuniculana

S2H

California GuJI

La r its t'fiiiforttit'us

Chesinui-coJIared Longspur

Ccilcariii* orntittis

S3B

Clay-colored Sparrow

SpizpIItt pallida

i ill! Swallow

PftriHhriitii'n pyrrfnrmrta

Common Night hawk

£ hwdntn muH>r

Common Ten

Sir rati himado

Harcd G irbc

PocEctpi lU&ricoUis

Hastern Kingbird

J \ j munis '■■ ' annus

franklins' lull

Larits piftixt'aa

S.1H

Gad wall

Aoas slre{*erti

Gray Partridge*

Petdix perdix

Horned Lark

Lrt'ttittphiitj tii/vjitt\

Killdecr

Chuuutrms VtrciJetUM

Lark Bunting

S.*H

Lc*ia Rycaicher

Etnpidtnmx mi ninttts

Loggerhead Shrike

Laniux lutun^icianus

S3B

Long- billed Curlew

Nwnefdus americanus

S2B

Mallard

Anas ftiatvrhyneh&s

Vlarblcd GodwN

Limosa frd*fa

McCown's Longspur

Vttlcarius ntccotvnii

S2B

Mourning Dove

. Zctutidtt macr<HAFa

Notihern Hairier

CtrCUt l ' : J i-JU

1 ni

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

Northern Shoveler

A Ha V : J v'U'tl.'tl

Redhead

Aythva tffnericatttM

Red-necked Grebe*

Podicrpt fimefiftta

Red-winged Blackbifd

A&ctaius phatnicfux

1 '"

King-billcd Gnll

I.t tr us tU'ttiv tir&rftu

Ruddv Duck

Ox vitro jarttaicf tuts

Savannah Sparrow

Pttsxercuhis sandwich* trtis

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Tvtttfwrtttc hits pitas uttt< tittt

S ho it -cared Owl

A surjltiimrtftts

SiSai;v.;L\-Jub

Sprue's 3'ipil

Aultms sprtifittfii

S2B

Swainson's Hawk

Bulta swaintorii

sin

Vesper Spa now*

PtHreectes £ramiucus

Western Meadow tart

St urn? Ha JW£icc(a

Willct

Cataptraph&rus semipaimatus

UiJs.'H> : iLlklf^IV

Pha/arojnts tric&ior

Wilson's Siipe"

GaUina&a deiicala

Yellow Warbkr

Dendrtrica frclrcftia

'species recoidcd on ihe Gordon Ranch property, bit ikh during poial counts

Montana Animal Spccicsof Concern

l'S=SlilC SUIllSi

S2B - At risk during breeding because of very
limited aid/or declining numbers, range, and/or
habitat, making ii vultciable to global extinction
or extirpation in the state.

S3B - Potentially at risk during breeding because
of limited and/or declining numbers, range,
and/or habiiai. even though ii may be abundant in
some areas*

Montana Partners in Flight Priority Levels

I Conservation Action: these arc species for
which Montana has clear obligatiois to
implement conservation.

II Monitoring Species: Montana has a high
responsibility 10 monitor the status of these
species, and/or to design conservation actions.

III Local Concert: Presence of these species may
serve as added criteria in the design and selection
of conservation or monitoring strategies (Casey
2000).

IUKPSQF RESTED AM) GRAZED PASTURES

Thiny-cight species of birds were recorded on
the rested parcels. Of these species, eight were
state species of concert and included, in
decreasing otticrof abutdancc. Chest am- collared
Longspur. Spraguc's Pipit. Baird's Sparrow.
McCown's Longspir. Lark Bunting. Brewer's
Sparrow. Franklin's GilL and Long- billed
Curlew (sceTable 2). Twenty-fourspccies
recorded during the point coints were common
to both the rested atd grazed plots, while
fourteen species were specific lothe rested
pastinrs: American Coot. Brewer's Sparrow.
California GulL Cliff Swallow. Common Tern.

Eared Grebe. Franklin's GuJI. Gad wall. Northern
Shoveler. Ring-billed GulL Ruddy Duck. Sharp-
tailed Gioise. and Shon-cared Owl, Twoshon-
gmss prairie species specific to the rested
pastures, the Brewer's Sparrow and the Shon-
cared Owl. are listed ot the state species of
concern list (the Shon-eared Owl as a potent ial
species of concern ).

Thiny species were documented on the grazed
pastures (see Table 3). se vet of which were stale
species of concern. Listed in decreasing oidcrof
abundance they include Chest nit- col lured

Longspur. McCowiTs Long spurs. BaitxTs
Sparrow. Spraguc's Pipit. Lark Bunting. Long-
billed Curlew, aid Swain son's Hawk. Six species
of birds were specific to i he graced points:
American Avocct. American Crow. Eastern
Kingbird. Least Flycatcher. Northern PiniaiLand
Swainsou's Hawk. Breeding unconfirmed for
one stale species of concern, the Swainson's
Hawk, with ihc discovery of an active nest.

The Chcsinui-coJIarcd Longspur. a state species
of concern, was the tin ■■■ abnndani and widely
distributed species on point counts during the
summer 2004 on ihc Gordon Ranch. This
species was recorded on 48 of I he 5) resied
pointsltotalof 262 individuals) and 44ofthc5l
grazed pointsOoialof 269 individuals).
Chestnut-collared Longsputsarc known lo utilize
habiial w nb moderately heavy glazing to no

grazing pressure (Samson and Knopf 1996). The
Chest mi- collared Longspur (along wiih ihe
Spragic's Pipit, BairtTs Sparrow, Lark Burning,
and McCowiTs Longspun isideniined as one of
I he primary (endemic) passerine species of I he
Great PlainslSamson and Knopf 1996).

The second most abtndant and widely distributed
species across I be property was I be Horned Lark,
a species geicially common (o eastern Montana.
Horned Larks, like the Western Meadow kirk, are
a secondary (ortioic widespread) species of I be
prairie, and are not considered Great Plains
grassland endemic species I Samson and Knopf
1996).

The second most encountered species of concert
on I be resied pastures was the Spragic's Pipit.
This species v. as also the fourth most recorded
species of concern on ibe grazed pastures. This
pipit species tends to favor grasslands with
moderale to no grazing, and whose breeding is
restricted toappropriate mixed-grass habitat
primarily in three slates (Montana, North Dakota,
and Souin Dakota) and three provinces (A Iberia,
Saskatchewan, and Maniloba) (Samson and
Knopf 1996, Johnsgard 2001 >. The breeding
habiial of this species, and also (be Baird's
Sparrow, isoneoftbc most limited for grassland
endemics (Jobnsgard 2(X)I j. Unlike a few
species of the prairie. Spraguc's Pipits are far
more abundant in native grassland than in

haylandsorcropkinds.and may be fully absent in
pastures dominated by non-native species
(Robbinsand Dale 1999 Jobnsgard 2001).
Grasslands of intermediate height and density
with moderate litter depths are preferred
(Robbinsand Dale 1999).

The Baird's Sparrow , already noted as an
endemic prairie species confined to ihc nonbern
Great Plains, prefers mixed-grass aid fescue
prairie wiib a scattering of low shrubs and
residual vegeiat ion (Green at. al 2002). The
Baird's Sparrow was the t hint most abundant
species of concern on both rested and grazed
pastures (fifth most abundant, overall, on the
resied. fourth most abundant, overall, on ihc

gra/cd). This species prefers large blocks of
lightly grazed lo ungra/cd midgmss prairie. and
is described as "not extremely abundant
anywhere in its range" (Jobnsgard 2001).

McCown* s Longspurs were the fourth most
abundant species of concern on the rested
pastures (eighlb most abundant, overall land the
second most eicotnteied species of concern on
the grazed plots it bird most abundant, overall).
This species, similarto the Horned Lark, prefers
a more heavily grazed landscape for nesting and
can be fotnd in areas of moderate to very heavy
grazing prcssuretWiib 1994. Samson and Knopf
1996). Distribution of this species is primarily
restricted tosparsely vegctaied and open semi-
arid skortgrass habitat, or overgrazed pastures
generally comprised of short grass species mixed
with limited cover of mid-grass species, shrubs,
and cactus (With 1994). Breeding oftke
McCown's Longspur may occur in ihe same
general location as that of the Chestnut-collared
Longspur, but rarely will they breed in the same
pasture unless a mosaic of botb shon and mid-
grasses are present (With 1994).

Another Great Plains prairie endemic species, the
Lark Bunting prefers areas of lighi to
modcrately-beavy grazing pressure (Samson and
Knopf 1996). Breeding generally takes place in
large open grasslands of low to moderate height
with limited open ground and the presence of
some scattered skribs. such as sagebrush
(Johnsgard 2001). Timing of grazing may play a
large rote in the suitability of breeding sites;

heavy summcrgra/ing has bcci fomd (o be
detriment] I (Shane 2000). The Lark Bunting was
more common on (he grazed than rested pastures
tilling the 2004 field sirve) .

The only non-passerine prairie endemic bin)
species foind on the Gordon Ranch, ibe Long-
billed Curlew pre I Vis moderate 10 heavily grazed
shon 10 mixed grassland (ihcoi her non-passerine
endemics arc (kc Mountain Plover |Q«//w/Wj«
rwf/rfru/f kind Ferruginous Hawk |B«r<*«
regafix}) (Samson and Knopf IW. Dnggeraid
Dugger2002). This species was more abundant
on the gra/cd than rested pastures. In general,
the Long- billed Curlew will select nesting sites in
open, sparsely vegetated prairie, while sites with
ia]lcr,dcnscrgrass is preferred for brood rearing
(Diggcrand Dngger2002>.

Tkc Brewer's Sparrow is the one species of
concern discovered on the Gordon Ranch that is
more closely associated with a big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridental*/) dominated landscapes than
short or mid-grass prairie (Rotenberry et aL

1999). This sparrow generally prcfcis shrubby
habitat with low shrub species diversity, limited
grass, kigker forb presence and significant bare
ground (Johnsgard 2001).
Generally a species of a grassland orshrubJand
landscape, the Swainson's Hawk typically nests
in trees scattered within this matrix. If trees art
not present, tken willow <5a/r.tspp.) along
riparian areas may also be utilized for nesting
sitcs<England el aL 1997). In addition to
foraging in native grasslands, agricultural crops
may also be nsed for foraging, if prey is present
and the crop height does not exceed that of native
grasscslEnglandcr aL 1997),

Nesting on water, the Franklin's Gull builds a
floating mat oritili/cs floating debris or muskrat
houses asa platform fora nest site. Rarely will
the species nest in flooded meadows (Barge and
Gothic hi 1994). Only a few nesting locations
have been documented in Montana: Bowdoin
National Wildlife Refuge in Phillips Cointy is
the nearest recorded nesting location to the
Gordon Ranch (MBD 2005),

Tabic 2. Species list and abundance on Rested Plots

Species Common Name

Total individuals

Total points where species was

prescnL »n=51 i

Chcsinui-collarcd Longspor

2452

Horned Lark

Western Mcadowtark

Spraguc's Pipit"

Build's Sparrow"

Savannah Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

McCown's Longspur

Brewer's BUkhml

Marbled Godwn

1.3

Rcd-wingcd Blackbiid

Wilkt

i ii.-.'.JLi.'iL " crn

Bn>wn*hcudcd Cow bird

Clay-cok>rcd Sparrow

A tic heat Coot

i 111 t Swallow

Non hern Shovclcr

Lark Binting"

Brewer's Sparrow*

Malted

Ruddy Duck

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Kilkiccr

Nonhcm Harrier

Franklin's CuJI"

Ring-billed Gill

Wilson's Pkuluiopc

California Gull

Shon-cared Owl

Hah Sw.illow

Eared G rebe

Bluc-wingcd Tea)

Common Nighthawk

Gadwall

Long-billed Curlew"

Mourning Dave

Upland Sandpiper

■ Male species of concert

Tabic 3. Species list and abundance on Grazed Plots

Species Common Name

Total ind md cals

Total points where species was
present (n=5l I

Chestnut-collared Longspir

269

Honed Lark

166

McCownfc Longspir

BainTs Sparrow"

Western Meadow lark

S praguc's Pipit"

Vesper Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

Brown-headed Cowbiid

Lark Bunting"

Brewei's Blackbird

Clay-colored Sparrow*

Long-billed Ciilcw "

Bluc-w inged Teal

Marbled Codwit

Noitlcrn Harrier

Swainsons Hawk"

Willcl

American Avocct

American Crow

Killdccr

Malted

Rcd-wingcd Blackbird

Wilson's Phalaropc

Barn Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Easzern Kingbird

Least Flycatcmcr

Mourning Dove

Northern Pintail

* state species or concern

ADDITIONAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
OBSERVED ON THE RANCH
The Burrowing Owl is a species of shod and
mixed grass prairies, generally found in
association with prairie dogs and other burrowing
mammals. As this owl rarely excavates its own
burrow . i he presence of available nesting sites
may limit this species during the breeding season
(Haugclal. 1993).

A species principally of the prairie, the
Loggerhead Shrike breeds in isolated trees or
large shmbs(Yoscf 1996). Crasslandswith
appropriate perching sites (shrubs, low trees, and
fences) provide ideal foraging habitat.

BREEDING EVIDENCE
The Montana Bird Distribution database
indicates breeding as either confirmed (Bh or
indirect evidence of breeding (b) was observed.
for all species I with the exception of foin
American Crow , Franklin's Gull, Red-necked
Grebe and Shon*eared Owl) ion he quarter
laiilongs" in which the ranch is located (see table

-IXMBD 2005V Direct evidence of breeding
was observed for five species previously
documented only with indirect evidence of
breeding. The Montana Bin) Distribution
database has been updated to reflect the new
breeding status information forthe species in the
appropriate quaricr-lalilongs. In addition,
another 64 species arc reported forthe associated
quarter latilongs: these include species present
across all habitat types, and indicate additional
potential species that may occur on the ranch*
provided the presence of appropriate habitat
(Appendix ID. [*Latilong is a combination of the
words latitude and longitude and rcprcsentsthe
area formed by the intersection of these
imaginary mapping lines (Lcnarti et al. 2003).)

All data collected during the point counts on the
Gordon Ranch have been entered into the
Montana Natural Heritage Poini Observation
Database for use in dcvck>ping Element
Occurrences of these prairie species. This
information will be available and accessible to all
individuals interested in prairie conservation.

1. Documented hrccd inp status

in Project Area - Blaine i

Speck* 1 - imnu -11 Nome

Ml Bird 1 *k 1 r tbu In -[i

American Avocci

American Crow

AmcricanCm*

American !■.'■■ i'l

American VVljICDtl

Hind* S furrow

B hie- winged Teal

Brewer 1 * Bfackbiid

!!r;-.;n Spunow

Brm\B-hr*ifcil i'ouhird

Hunowing Owl

California Gull

Chctf nu-colhred 1xin£%j*ir

MHr

C fay-colored S pa now

CliffSnkw

Com moo \utr*kuv. \.

Com moi Tern

Fared Grebe

Faxcrn Kiagblnl

TmMmtCkill

God will

Gray hirtridgc

Homed lark

b<B>

Kilkfccr

lark ItuntiAji

Lea A Flycatcher

Loggerhead Shrike

long-billed Curlew

Mslbfd

Ma*>lc*IGodwii

McCowb'i Long* pin

M.'ursizi* I\^ r

Ni trih^rs H;iii>n

NonhcmPinwU

NoKhcmShoYclcr

Redhead

Red- ncc Led Grebe

(

Reo-w inged Hhckbird

Rtng-bytdOuJI

RlftkH |)utk

SjMuiuh Sfaroi"

> Lllp-Mljd ' iftHElL -

b\iir

Shotf-cnrcd Owl

Spmguci Pipi

Swainnons Hawk

Vesper Sparrow

MBr*

A cmc in Meadow larl

Willct

Wiln>n\Plutirofc

w ikon's Snipe

Vclfcw Waiblcr

indicates tew inform;* ion on Ihc breeding sia: us of these species basal
upon inforauiion gathered daring noini count survcysduring this rm>jcct,

CONCLUSION

This rcpon describes the methods used Tor
performing a first-year point count inventory of
bird species on select sires on the Gorton Ranch
in Blanc County. Montana, and presents data
from the 20O1 field visit. Several state Species
of Coicen and/or PIF Priority Species were
detected (Table 2), with many additional species
that are typical breeding members of grassland
communities elsewhere in Montana. Most, if
nor all, of the species of concern probably breed
al or tear the locations v. here they were
recorded* as the field survey occurred during ibe
breeding season and observations included
singing males, territorial displays in appropriate

breeding habitat, and some active nests*

maintain plant divcixliy on the land for the
protection of existing available habitat. Without
in vest igai ions on surrounding properties, i: Is
difficult to contrast ibe quality of habiiai
available on the Gordon Ranch with adjacent
ranches. That said, judging hum the species
diversity discovered on the ranch, ibe general
abundance of individual species, and the
presence of comparatively abundant numbers of
state species of concern, securing an easement
ob the Gorton Ranch was a great step toward
conserving Montana's ever-diminishing native
prairie aid ibe unique suite of species thai
depend upoi it. Conservation of our native
plants and wildlife, surely, cannot occur without
the protection of the land and ihe naiuraJ
processes i bat support them.

We anticipate ibut additional bird species breed
on (he property and will be discovered with
additional field investigations: thus, the
information presented here should not be
considered a comprehensive assessment of the
avian diversity across the project area.
Additional inventory and monitoring efforts
would assist in gaining a better understanding of
the importance of (his easement to lie
conservation of the prairie species utilizing this
habitat. Futiher investigations would be

warranted when and if management
considerations are targeted to panicular species
of conservation concern. In order to provide
breeding opportunities in the future,
management efforts on the Coidon Ranch
should consider the habitat requirements of each
individual species, undemanding that optimal
conditions for successful breeding can vary
greatly between species.

All hough Montana's remnant grasslands are
critical to the long-term survival of a host of
native species, the land continues to be broken
for agriculture, fragmented by resource
extractive interests, and. for many lands thai
have survived intact, plagued by poor
management. The Coidon Ranch provides
breeding habitat for several endemic prairie bird
species, as well as other more widespread
grassland birds. The conservation casement in
place on the ranch is designed to utilize a three-
treatment rest-rotation management system to

CITATIONS

Casey, Daniel. 2000. Montana Fanners in
Flight. Drill Conservation Plan Montana.
Janiaiy 2000. Kalispcll. Montana. 281 pp.

Dogger. B.D. aid K.M. Digger. 2002. Long-
billed Curlew (Nmtteiux anericamis). to The

Birds of North America. No. 628. (A. Poole and
F. Gill's, cds.) The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia. PA.

Green, MX., P.E. Lowibcr. S.L. Jones, S.K.
Davis aid B.C. Dale. 2002. Baud's Sparrow
[AmmadramUM bairdu}. In The Birds of North
America, to. 638 (A. Poole and F. Gill's, cds.)
The B i ill s of North America, lie. Philadelphia.
PA.

Hang, E.A., B.A. Millsap. and M.S. Matlcll.
1993. Bnrrowiag Owl (Sjreotyfo c-rinmlfarur). In
The Birds of North America, to. 61 (A. Poole
and F. C ill's, edsj The Birds of North America,
lie, Philadelphia. PA.

Roicnbcrn'. J.T.. M.A. Patten, and K.L.Prcsion.
1999. Brewer's Sparrow {Spi&Ua frmtvn). In
The Birds of North America. No. 390 (A. Poole
and F. Gills, edsj. The BiirJs of Nonb America,
lie. Phildclphia. PA

Samson, K. aid F. Knopf. 1996. Prairie
Conservation - Preserving North America's
Most Eidaigercd Hcosystcm. Island Press.
Washington. D.C. 339 pp.

Shaie, T.G. 2000. Lark Burning {Catamospizp
meianocoryw). In The BiirJs of Nonb America.
No. 542 (A. Poole and F. Gills, cds.). The Birds
of" North America. Inc. Phildclphia* PA.
Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Soil Survey of
Blaine County and pan of Phillips County
Moniana. USDA Depl. of Agricullurc. Soil
Conservation Service and USDI. Bireai of
Indian Affaits in cooperation with the Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station. MSU. Stale
Land and Investments Depanmem. 304 pp.

Jobnsgard. P. 2001. Prairie Biids - Fragile
Splendor in the Great Plains. University Press of
Kansas. Lawrence. Kansas. 33 1 pp.

Moniana Natural Hcrilagc Program. 2004.
Montana Animal Species of Concern. MTNHP
A MFWP. Helena. Montana. 13 pp.
Bobbins. M.B. and B.C. Dale. 1999. Sprague's
Pipil [Antfnt* jpra£i*nf)- !■ The Birds of Nortb
America, No. 439 (A. Poole and F. Gill. cds.).
The Birds of Nonb America. Inc.. Philadephia.
PA.

With K.A. 1994. McCown's Longspur
[Calcariux mccowmi). In the Birds of North
America, No. 96 (A. Poole and F. Gills. Eds,).
Philadelphia: The Academy of Naiuial Sciences;
Washington. D.C.: The American

Ornithologists' Union.

Yoscf. R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Laiius
ludovkianusi In the Birds of North America.
No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gills. Eds.). Tie
Academy of Natural Sciences. Philadelphia, and
The American Ornithologists* Union.
Washington. D.C.

Appendix A, Polnl Counl Locations on Border Unit. Gordon Cattle Company

GORDON CATTLE COMPANY
Border Unit

■ ■- ■ -I* ■ pasiur torts

| | r ■ : i -;:

/\/Pid*j*» fame Irss
iBLMIard

Appendix If. Point Counl Locations an Fifteen Mile Unit, Cordon Cattle Company

GORDON CATTLE COMPANY
Fifteenmile Unit

/\/p«dunj tenet th«v

?£j4af40ftC4ltlfrC&ri|i«nv

- 'i ■■

SECTION 2

NELSON'S SHARP-TAILED SPARROW, LECONTE'S SPARROW,

YELLOW RAIL AND SEDGE WREN IN SHERIDAN, ROOSEVELT,

AND DANIELS COUNTY, MONTANA

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow,

LeConte's Sparrow,

Yellow Rail and Sedge Wren

Sheridan, Roosevelt, and Daniels

County, Montana

Prepared for:

The Nature Conservancy and

Montana Natural Heritage Program

15 15 East Sixth Avenue

Helena, MT 59620-1800

Prepared by:

Ted Nordbagen and Matthew Nordhagen

311 Wests* Ave

P.O. Box 44

Westby t MT 59275

September 2004

INTRODUCTION

Objectives

Tic purpose of (his study was to conduce surveys
of four bird species of special concern :
Yellow I'. llI ( Cat urrtic ftps Mcwtth&rtieenttxi.
Sedge Vfxt*{Cixlat$umtsffl€ttenxis'\+ScXso%'s
Sharp-tailed Sparrow {AmmodratrnU w/«r>nrh
and LcContc's Sparrow (Am/nodramtts leeottteii).
Although all four large! species occur it
Montana little is currently known aboil iheir
breeding biology and distribution in Montana.

Additionally, species of concern found it the
2003 joint MTHP/FWP list were included ii oir
survey with special attention given to Smooth
Green Snake (Offhetrdry* vernali*).

Here wc will summarize information
documented on 1) site descriptions: 2)
numbers of singing males; 3) numbers of
pairs & territories when possible 4) breeding
evidence of target species.

Study Area

We surveyed 62 sites, which were established in
three counties (Sheridan. Roosevelt and Dane Is I
located in no nh east Montana- Survey sites were
selected based oi potent ul breeding habitat
within each county surveyed. This included
emergent wetland marshes (freshwater, brackish,
& salt) as well as smaller isolated wetlands (i.e.
freshwater seeps/fens associated with alkali
lakes). Survey totals within each county were as
follows: Shcridan-36 sites; Roosevelt- 15 sites,
Daniels- 1 1 sites. The higher survey total in
Sheridan County directly reflects its landscape,
which is dominated by glaciated, prairie pot holes.
This area, known as The MissouriChoteau.cuts
aciussthe northeast corner of Sheridan County
and extends southward into the nonheasi third of
Roosevelt County. Traveling west and south of
this area, the influence of the Missouri C hot eau is
replaced by ephemeral tributaries on the Big
Muddy Creek in western Sheridan County and by
the Poplar River and it's tributaries in eastern
Daniels County into western Roosevelt County.
This area is dominated by an abundance of farm
and ranch land, with notkcablv fewer wetland

habitats suitable forihetat^et species surveyed in
this study.

Survey Titling

Initial surveys began on 2 June and ended .1 July.
A second survey period to document breeding
evidence on target species began on 1 3 July and
ended on 24 July.

In establishing survey sites, locations with which
we had the least familiarity were given
preference to avoid any bias in our report.
Although areas of historical significance were
included, these sites were given secondare
consideration. Several historic sites were
selected based on theirclose proximity to
West by. MT. These sites were used to monitor
timing of nesting activities during our breeding
survey period and each, site was revisited
multiple limes.

We conducted our surveys during morning and
evening hours when possible although, weather
delaysduring the survey period eventually
required us to conduct surveys throughout the
day. Survey activities were not conducted when
winds exceeded 25 mphorduriug periods or rain.

Survey Methods

Surveys were conducted using the following
method: At each sac. observations were initiated
by observing and listening for approximately five
minutes. Following this, we utilized a tape
player to broadcast calks of each target species to
increase our probability of detection. This was
followed again with a shorter period of observing
and listening for any response by target species to
our taped calls. During this time, any target
species heatd or observed were documented.
We would then move approximately 100- 150 m
along our survey route before repeating the
process. The 100-150 m distance was established
to minimize recounting of individual birds that
mav cross over from one area to the next.

Documentation

Documentation of survey site locations was made
using aCARMEN CPSmap 76 Unit supplied by
Montana Natural Heritage Program. Using the
GPS unit, way points were assigned by numeric

idem iricatton ai I he start of each survey. Where
nest Location* were found, specific names were
assigned to these waypoints (sec GPS Wuypoin
STSP NEST). Any specimens collected were
also labeled in (his manner (see G PS waypoint
SMGR SNAKE).

While conducting individual survey points,
information was recorded in a small notebook
and iaier recorded using a standardized Wciland
Survey Data Sheet supplied by Montana Natural
Heritage Program.

Photos and video were taken of a nest site using a
digital camera at GPS Waypoint #021 on 22 Jily
(Appendix B. CD-ROM's, STSP Video A STSP
Photos).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis

From the above references, a survey table was
made to summarize oir findings (Fig. #1.
Appendix A).

A total of three individual target species were
identified during our survey period. They were
Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow < Am mod ram us

nelsoni). LcConie's Sparrow (Ammodramus
leconieii)and Sedge Wren (Cistothorus
platcnsis). Additional species of concern in
Montana which were identified during ihe survey
period included 15 bird species. I frog species,
and 1 snake species. They are listed tin
descending order of sites identified at) as
follows: BainTs Sparrow [Atnmitdr&nux bairdii)*
Grasshopper Sparrow {AmmadrnmiM
savartrtttntnt). SpragUC S Pipit [Antfntt sprafiufiij.
Black Ten {Chitidmiht* ai&erh Bobolink
tDtriictwnyx arydvorux). Chest nut-collared
Longspur(C«/<-«/Y«< ornatax), American White
Pelican {Pfitetimts erylhr&rkynchax). Lark
Bunting (C*tlarnasf/izxr ft^lfWH-oryt), FmnkWns
QwU {Lams pipixcan), American Bitten
{BiHautm fonti&imntts)* Piping Plover
iCiitirtitirius meladiis}, White-faced Ibis
(Pfc&adl* r/n AD, Orchard Oriole {Icterttt
spurius}. Common Ten {Sterna hirtmdtr)*
Forster'sTern (Stermtforxterih Notthern
Leopard Frog iRittmfri{nenn) and Smooth Crcci

S nake ( Ophecrdrys vernatix}.

Nesting Rest lis

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow wasthe most
abundant target species identified. They were
observed ai 31 survey siles. and I heir dtsihbut ion
was throughout the entire si rvcy area (Sheridan
Couity-22 sites, Roosevelt County- 5 sites,
Daniels Cointy-4 sites). Definitive breeding
evidence for Ncison's Sharp-tailed Sparrow was
observed at two separate local ions in Sheridan
County(Fig#L Appendix A. GPS Poini WO I,
GPS Point #021), A single case of Brown-
headed Cowbitd parasitism of a Nelson's Sharp-
tailed Sparrow nest was documented on 22 July
at McCoy Dam north of Plenty wood, MT (Fig.
#1. Appendix A, GPS Point #02 L Appendix B.
CD-ROM. STSP VidcoXD-RQM.STSP
Photos}. Based on citcumstaniial evidence, it
was probable thai breeding occurred at ihrce
additional survey sites (Fig. #1. Appendix A,
GPS Point #023. GPS Point #048, and GPS Poini
#062).

LcContc's Sparrow was uncommon throughout
the survey period. They were observed ai a tola)
of 5 survey siles. all local cd in Sheridan County
(Fig. #L Appendix A. GPS Point #001. CPS
Point #008. GPS Poini #023. GPS Point £<U2.
and GPS Point #057). Despite numerous visits to
these siles. no definitive breeding evidence was
observed.

One single observation during oir survey period
of Sedge Wren was made in Roosevelt Cointy
(Fig. #1. Appendix A, GPS Point £038 )♦ Based
upon observations of territorial behavior and
vocalizations by a single male, along with the
presence of a female at this sue. ii is likely these
birds nested at this Jot anon .

At no lime did we identify any Yellow Rail
during oursirvcy period.

CONCLUSION

Our goal was to document four species of special
concern known to occur in Montana, and to
provide information to help us better understand
their distribution and breeding biology in the
counties surveyed, and the stale. Also, we hope
this information will help to identify conservation

oppoit i n it ics t bal will help maintain these
species of concern and aid in developing
strategics to consent eke wetland habitats in
which tkey oocir.

Although detection rates during onr study
provided ns with information on occurrence and
distribution . otker results were less conclusive
and we believe provide a basis for additional
studies.

The weatkerduring oursttdy was dynamic and
ever-changing. Spring snow nick combined with
above average precipitation in May provided
ideal moisture conditions on w r ct lands we
surveyed. Despite these favorable conditions,
unseasonably cold temperatures during this same
period significantly slowed tkc emergence of
vegetation on these wetlands. A lale spring snow*
siorii deposited 16 inches of snow in Sheridan
County on the 12 th of May. Bittcrtycold
temperatures and remnants of this storm persisted
forovera week

Late arrival dates and inconsistent detection rates
diiing onr initial si rvcy period in June on
historical silcs where LeConte's & Nelson's
Sharp-tailed Spanow were known to occur, along
wit h the complete absence of Yellow Rail and
Sedge Wren suggest that weatkerand vegetation
conditions may have played a role.

In an attempt lo provide additional information
wit h regard to tkese inconsistencies, we revisited
selected sites where initially target species had
not been detected. These sites were revisited
multiple times di ring our breeding survey period
in Jily.and continued to yield additional

observations of Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow
and LeConte's Sparrow. Although some of these
birds may have avoided detection initially,
aggressive vocalizations and territorial behavior
observed at these locations may suggest
otherwise. Had these birds Jist arrived at these
locations due to adverse weal her and vegetation
conditions 4 ? Or hud these binls moved in from
another area and were attempting to re- nest or
double-brood? Although additional new
observations of Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow
and LeCoitc's Sparrow continued during our
survey period, this was not the case for Yellow
Rail and Sedge Wren. A single observation of
Sedge Wren was made during otr study, but no
Yellow Rail was encountered. Bothoftkcsc
species average arrival dates arc somewhat
earlier than Nelson's Sharp-tailed and LeConte's
Sparrow and may have been more directly
affected by weather and vegetation conditions.

Although several instances of breeding evidence
were observed diring tkc course of oir study,
additional stvdies would be useful in
documenting nesting activities. Nelson's Sharp-
tailed Sparrow , LeConte's Sparrow and Yellow
Rail arc kigkly secretive species. Breeding
evidence is difficult to determine as much of tkc
nest building occits below the vegetation. Field
experience with these birds, knowledge of
preferred habitats, and luck all play a role in
observing and studying these birds in the field.

Additional st idies would be helpful in
determining the following I) Tkc effect of
climatic and habitat variables 2) Breeding and
nesting success rates 3) Density and return rates
J) Brown-headed Cow bint parasitism rates.

Appendix A, Fig

urc #1 : Survey Tabic

i.E'S

Point

Dole Begin End
Tine Time

Location Numc

Commtj

Target Spec *r* Brecdlag Add! Species ol < ontcrn
Found Statu*

001

6/2*4 7:33 AM 9:30
AM

OhiDk Lnkc-Sduc Use WPA

SheiKlan

SSTS-

SM.ILUKSP-

None

BOBO- 1 -CRSP- LS PPI-3M .B AtS-
1M

00 J

&J5*4 10:05 12:00
AM PM

Goulkc lake- Stale Line WPA

thcikfcin

NSTS-2M

None

001

6/20*4 5:00 FM 6:30
I'M

Gmlkc Ukc-Siuc Lwc WPA

Sneiktin

NSTS-2M.IF

None

SPPI-I.BAIS-2M

001

7/3*4 SflO AM 9:30
AM

CtauDsc Lakc-5«aic Lwc WPA

SheiKlan

None

SPPM .BAIS-IM

OflDPM 7:00
PM

Quite Lake- Scale Line WPA

S lie r>to n

NST5-3M.IF

N«>a:

None

:'i,

7/13*4 G:20PM 81)0
PM

Gaulkc Uke- Stale Lwc WPA

S he rklii n

NCTS-2M

None

SPPI-LBAIS-2M

:'i,

7/1*04 6: 15 AM 7:20
AM

Gauilx lake- Stale Line WPA

^S.D.bn

S'STS-ftMl

Yes- Food
eany A

fztil MIL

SPPM-CRSF-1

002

6/2*4 10:1b 11:07
AM AM

Stale Lik WPA- Restored
Wetland

ShcihLm

None

.BOBO-2M.CCLO-2M.SPPI-IM,

[KM

6/204 12:12 1:17
PM PM

Widgeoi Slough WPA

ShcihLm

NSTS-IM

None

BOBO-5MC1RSP-JM.BAIS-2M

003

7/23*4 9: 15 AM 10:20

Widgeon SbugMVPA

Si-nAm

NSTS-2M. IF

Nok

B0BO4M.CRSP-2M.BAIS-I

ooi

fj/2*4 3J2PM 4:15
PM

Bo bier Dam

Shcrhfmi

None

BLTE-I2.AWPE4

005

0/2*4 522 PM 6:J0
PM

JobntoD t-aLe-Vilpoii?
Chandler

ShcihLm

None

GRSP-I1-ARB-J.BLTK-2.BA15-
2M

fj/2*4fj;iOPM 7:J0
PM

SiIIjiLc

Shciihn

None

PIPL-JCCLO-2M.SPPI-IM

DOG

7/23*4 10:30 11:00

AM AM

Sit Lake

S h-:jkl,i ri

NSTS-IM

None

CCLO-IM.IF.SPP1-IM.BAIS-IM

007

6/3*4 7:34 AM 8:15

Unnunred Wabnd

Si..n/,in

Nose

None

BOBO-i H CRSF-3.BAIS-2M

■:us

6/3*4 8:25 AM 10:35
AM

Big Slough WPA-DDBinck

Shcikbn

NSTS-2M

S'one

CRSIMM.BAIS-2M

OOH

6/7*4 9:20 PM 10:00
PM

Big Slough WPA-Donunek

ShcihLm

None

7/20*4 10:50 12:00
AM PM

Big Sfaugfc WPA-Doalnek

Shcrhhn

NSTS-2M;
LE5P-1M

None

GRSP-230BO-GM,SPPI-
IM.BAIS-2M

008

7/21*04 5:30 AM 6:30

Big Slough WPA-Do»mek

Sheridan NSTS-IM:
LESP-JM

None

BOBO-3.SPPI-IM3AIS-IM

009

6/3*4 3:i6PM 440
PM

Section Wp.4 illui itaimge i

ShcihLm

None

GRSP- 1 3LTE-4 30BO-25PPI-

IXUl MS-4M

010

fj/i*4 7:24 AM 747
AM

■Uoiuicd Wcthid-CoacMown Sheikkin
TNC

NSTS-IM

S'one

CR S P-2 £C LOS .S m- 2M .B A! S-

010

7/19*4 10:05 11:00
AM AM

T\C

NSTS-IM

None

GRSP- 1 -SPPI-2M .B AIS-2M

ttt*4 8:06 AM 8:38
AM

Lone Tree LaLc-Cumcaown
TNC

Shcrittan

None

PIPL- 1 <CCLO-2M.BLTE-2.SPPI-
3M.BAIS-3M

012

6/4*4-7:30 FM 8:25
PM

River* WPA

Shctktin

NSTS-IM

Nok

BITE- 1000

012

7/20*4 945 AM 10:30

Rivet* WPA

ShcihLm

None

BAIS-IM

013

6/5*4 800 AM 8:35
AM

Sneiktin

None

Noac

Nok

013

1 1

7/23*4 12:00 1245
PM PM

L 1 n tut med ^ ei hud- <lMfaMl

1 1 nils

S he rhlti n

NSTS-IM

None

BAIS-IM

t;ps
point

Dole Uefiin
Time

EmI

1 I mi

Loruilon Nutnc

Fount

I Stoma

Add! Specie* <>l" Concern

014

6/5*14 8:40 AM 9:20
AM

Unnamed Wcttaid-NE«r

ouiook.hrr

Sheridan None

Noae

BLTE-2

015

12:10
PM

Unanmcd WdhiitDilcvirw,

Sbetkbn None

None

CRSP-I

oio

MW 12:30
PM

1:25

Whiciail Reservoir

Panic h Nunc

None

BLTE-2.AWPE-23AI5-IM

017

&5flj4 2d2FM

2:32
PM

AigleJb WPA

IXi uch None

None

ois

ti/SrtW 3:05 PM

345
PM

Internal ional Manh-Scobcy.
MT

Danich NST3-?

None

BAIS-3M

019

6/5/044:45 PM

5:50
PM

Ffaxvilk WPA

Dimwit Nunc

None

BOBD-3«CRSP-l.BAIS-2M

02C)

d.'T.m 7:03 AM 745

Gooaebkc WPA (wuh)

Saeikaia None

None

CRSP-2.BAIS-3M

[)Z\

ttSAtt 7:43 AM 91)0
AM

McCoy Dei hi

ShcriJan NST5-2M

None

BLTE-2.BAIS-2M

MiW 10:00

1005

McCoy Dam

Saciktin N5TS-IM

None

CCLD-2M.SPPI-IM3AI3-IM

021

7/l9*W 11:30
AM

1205
AM

McCoy Dam

ShciiJaa N$TS-!M.1

Yea- Food

*fc fecal
drop

SPPMM

021

7/2204 10:00
AM

12:00
PM

McCoy Dam

Saciktin NST5-IM,

Yea- Food

A lecal
dnijt

Noae

021

: 45 PM

3:00
PM

McCoy Dam

Sheikha N5TS-IM.

Neat Noae

w/flcdgling

BHCO

STSP
Neat

7/21U4 1:16 PM

I:l6

McCoy Dam

Shcrkfcia NST5-IM.

Neat None
w /fledgling
BHCO

STSP
Neat

7/21J04 2:30 FM

3:20
PM

McCoy Dam

Saciktin None, NSI > re« i mpt)

found ncM , Photo

None

022

6AJ04 10:14
AM

1 1:00

lRndCicck

Sheridan None

Son?

SPPIOM.BAIS-IM-CRSP"
2M.UPSA-2*/nc*?

023

MjW TOO AM 9:30
AM

Section WPA (wot dninigrci

ShciiJan NSTS-4M.

None

5 PPI-3M .B AIS-6M £OBC>
frM-GRSP-IM

023

7/2 1*14 6:50 AM SflO
AM

Section WPA (Wut daragc;

1 ShcfiJaa NOTS-2M,
LHSP-2M

STSP-lood

SPPI-2M -B AIS-2M A MB 1*
2.BOBO-2MXJR5P-IM

021

6**9*04 10:21
AM

11:00
AM

UanaatedWcitond-SundCrecl

b Rooky c None

None

BAIS-IM

021

7/21*14 335 PM

4:J0
PM

UaaomcdWahnd-SaadCicck Roosevc NSTS-IM

Noae

BAIS-IM.LARB-IM.IF

•

6W.04 11:10
AM

II05
AM

. niumcil W :c li rul- I-!m jhiiii^

I'-l Oil*

Rocaevc Nome
1

Noae

GCLO-IM,

026

61*9*04 12:05
PM

1:10
PM

UiaamcdWahnd-SandCieck Rooky? NCTS-1M,

Noae

CRSP-I

027

6**9*04 20S FM

3:20
PM

B*jj 1a kc- D* roc 11 Sputa

Kooacvc Noae

Noae

BAIS-IM AWPK-ej.ee LO
3M.BLTE-3.BOBO-IM

028

&I404 753 AM HJS
AM

Dagmar Sown WPA-Ukc *l l-
#12

Sheridan NSTS-2M

Noae

CC LO-2M -B LTE-5COTE-

l.\MI!M

[)2&

7/21*4 8: 10 AM 840
AM

Dagmar Souih WPA-hlc #1 1-

Shciklan None

None

BAIS-I3LTE-2

029

6/15*4 8:07 AM 9:30
AM

. Sheridan NCTSOn

S'one

FRCU-3

030

&'16*04 945AM 10:20
AM

McdkiaeUikcMVR-
Hoaaeatad

She mam None

Noae

o;i

6/16*04 605 AM 7:10
AM

Rcacivc Creek

Shcridin NST3-IM

Noae

SPPMM.BAIS-IM

i.rs
Point

Dole Begin
Tim

lad

1 inir

Location N'uitic

Comstj Target Speck* Breeding
Found NLiiu*

Add* 1 Spec id of Concern

Oil

7/IOT4 1:30 FM

2:25
PM

Rcjcivc Cicck

Shcrkbn NSTS-IM

Nok

SFPI- 1 M. BAIS-IM

032

&J&04 745 AM R:J0
AM

Duck Lake

Rikbcvc No ac
fc

Noac

FRGU-l50.BLTri-2g

033

6/16:04 9;20 AM 10:00
AM

fchmoa Ukc WPA-Eaa

Rococvc None

None

BAIS-2M-BOBO-IM-CRSP-
IM.BLTE-1

[>33

7/2IJ04 11:20
AM

12:45
PM

Jolutton Ukc \VPA-Ea«

ftocoeve NSTS-IM

Noac

Nl'PlL

smc;

7J2IV04 11:56
AM

12:10
PM

Johnson Ukc WPA-EaM

RoiUCVCU

N °-

Smooth tixcen Sn;* ■

WJU04 10: 10
AM

10 55

Johmon Ukc WPA-Wck

Rootcvc Nuac

Noac

BAIS-1M

035

1:00
PM

Manning Slough

Rooncvc Noac

Noac

BAIS-JM.CCLO-2M.WnB-

036

frl&Oi 145 FM

2:10
PM

NfclKainLafcc

Rooscvc Noac

None

BAIS-3MJjRSP- IM£C LO-3M

:>"

to'lS.M&OO AM K:(5
AM

Unnumcd Wcihod-E-ofFioM

, Itacncvc NSTS-2M

Noac

BAIS-JM BLTti-6

037

7/2 i.m .T.oo pm

345
PM

Unearned Wdhad-E. of FidbJ

h Rotncvc Noac

None

BAIS-1M

038

b'l&ttl 9:30 AM

: 10:30
AM

L nnamed WcthmMtainvilk

Rooacvc NSTS-IM. IF

Noac

BOB02M.GRSP-JM

038

7/21*04 1:15 PM

245
PM

Unnamed Wcibtu>Bainvilk,

Rfm.w:vc NSTS-lm.lF:
k SEWR-IM.lF

YcM?>
Behavior

OROR-iM.IFw/noi

039

6/I&04 3:05 FM

340
PM

Rod Spring*

5 heroin n Noac

Noac

SPPMM.BAIS-2M

040

6/18*04 42DPM

5:15
PM

Innmcd wctbatM of

McCabc. \rr

Rooscvc Noac

Noac

BAI5-1MjGR5MM

041

6/18*04 6:00 PM

6:50
PM

Uaanmcd wcibat^V *
AnJcnon Dam

Rncncvc Noac

Noac

BAIS-IM«GRSP-2M.raTF-
IAWPF-4

6/20*04 9:30 PM

JO: 30
PM

Unaumcd wcihmWrixivrbkc
Wcm

Sheridan NSTS-2M;
LESP-IM

Noac

SPPI-IM.BA1S-2MjGRSP-
lM.BOBO-IM£CLO-3

(U2

6EW04 630 AM 6:55
AM

Unanmcd ivcihncVGixiicbkc
Wcm

She rid) n NST5-2M. IF:
LESP-2M

Noac

BAIS-3M£CLO-2M

(U2

T/l.i.m 10:00

11:3!

Unnamed ncibmXTrfviwbkc

Sacikbn

LESP-IM.

IF?

Noac

BAIS-IM

042

7/HhW 8:00 AM 9:30

Unanmcd naba*Xioo%cbLc
Wc«

Shciktan

[ ISP-2M

None

BAIS-IM

<U3

6/21*04 700 AM 7:25
AM

I unamciiWcilin.VNavjho
MT

Danich

Noac

BA1S-2M3LTE-3

W2l*O4 8fl0AMSJ0
AM

Unnamed %cthiu>S. of
FkxviDcMT

I ki n i ■: h

None

Noac

LARB-2M.BLTB-I

(U5

6/2 LU4 8:57am

9:30
AM

Unnamed Wei had- 5, of
FluvillcMT

Danich

NSTS-l?

Noac

BAIS-IM

tUfi

6/21.04 9:43 AM 10:33
AM

S*oke Cftckdiaiau£?

Panic U

None

BAlSaMrCLO-6M.UPSA-IM.IF

<U7

6V2IJ04 11:00

11:10
AM

So:ol; Citck drainage

::,iii..h

None

BAIS-IMBOBOIM

6/21.04 11:30
AM

I2s45

Smoke C tec I?- Pleasant Paine

Paiuch

Nsrs-iM

None

CRSP-IM.UPSA-2

IUS

7>23»4 3O0 PU

1 4:30
PM

Sawkc Cicck-Pkaunt Tank

[I.H1L..-K

NSTS-IM.

Ye*- fix*

a n\ ?

1 SPPI-2M.BA1S-2M.UPSA-1

049

6/1 All 12:15
PM

1:30
I'M

NoahcasiWPA

ShcihLiiL

Noac

SPPI-2M .BAIS-IM

<H9

6/22*04 lias
AM

12:30
PM

NoahcM WPA

Shcikfan

NSTS-2M

None

SITMM.ll MS-2M.: = : ?1H -

2MXTCLO-3MJF

tt*9

7/l3*O4 8:l6AM<M0
AM

NoahcaaiWPA

Shctktiii

NSTS-IM.

Noac

SPPI-IM3AIS-IM

i.rs

Point

Dote < Begin Had
Time Time

Locution N'miic

< .-unh

Target Speck* Breeding

I'mind Status

Adc)*l Specie* of Concert*

050

&2L04 12:50 2*10
PM PM

Base Camp WPA

S ,\: : >. I*i s\

NSTS-2M

None

GRSF-IM

050

fr'21iU4 10:30 12:00
PM AM

Ba*cCampWPA

Saerktin

NSTS-1M

Noac

[>5«

7/19*1* 7*10 AM 8:50
AM

BaacCampWFA

Si-n^u

NSTS-3M

None

SPPI-IM

t>f2Sm 10:26 11:15
AM AM

lUamtmcd wcibtK> four Butte*

.:,in..h

None

Noac

8LTE-2

052

6/28AU 8:30 AM 9:15
AM

L ramimcd wtfaad-Cbmc *qia n

Sacikbn

None

SPPI-2M.BAIS-3M-GRSP-JM

053

M2SAH9:3SAM 10:10
AM

C omen Lake

SlcrinU

NSTS-2M. IF

None

GRSF-2M30BO-4M

053

7/19™ 11:10 11:20
AM AM

Content take

SkcihLm

Noac

05*

6/28*04 10:30 11:10

AM AM

I niamed ^abiuM)^*^ ■, M T Skcihkin

Noac

SPPI-2M.BAIS-2M3LTE-23

u.'ae*<

OSS

6/29JO* 7:30 AM 8:05
AM

Unarmed wcibad-CDilridgc.

Sheridan

Naac

None

B LTE- 35-40 J=RGU- 10

Dft

6/29KWB:lSAM9:00
AM

Unanmcd wet hid- A mc lope »

SherKlan

NSTS-IM

Noac

BLTE-2

056

7/19*14 2J5PM 3:30
PM

L numed wcthmi-Affckipc.

SkcihLin

None

Noac

057

fr'29iU4 9:3DAM 10:20
AM

lake Crcck Fbis-Med, Uke

Sacrklan

NSTS-iM

None

GRSP-2M

057

7/2li*W 8:50 AM 10:30
AM

Lake Cicck Ffam-Mcd. Lake
NWR

Sheritkm

\srs-s\i.2i ■
LESP-2M

None

■AWPE-3XARB-3MJF

058

6/30*14 7; IS AM 7:35
AM

Unnamed nflhAH'kii) wwm.\

.Sheridan

NSTS-IM

Noac

6/3CWW 8:00 AM 9:05
AM

Raymoad Dam-Raymond. MT

Sacritfan

None

BA15-1MBLTE-I

060

7J23AH 8:30 AM 9:00
AM

\ nn.imcd wcibnd

Ihcodn

NSTS-IM

None

!SPPI-IMCCLD-IM

061

7/23.U4 10:30 11:00

AM AM

l/numcd wcihod-W t ol Suit
Lake

Sheridan

NSTS-2M

None

SPPHM.BA1S-2M.BOBO-IM

062

7/23«W 1:15 PM 2:30
PM

WMictail Clock- E. of
WbadaiLMT

Dnniefc

NSTS-2M.IF

Yct-food
cany?

1 LcopaidFn>ji.BLTE-l

SECTION 3

RESULTS OF AN AERIAL SURVEY FOR BLACK- 1 AILED AND WHITE-
TAILED PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES IN SOUTHEASTERN MONTANA

RESULTS OF AN AERIAL SURVEY FOR

BLACK-TAILED AND WHITE-TAILED

PRAIRIE DOG COLONIES

IN SOUTHEAS TERN MONTANA

Prepared by

Craig J. Knowlcs

FaunaWcst Wildlife Consultants

POB 113

Boulder, MT 59632

Prepared for

Montana Natural Heritage Program
15 15 East Sixth Ave.
POB 201800
Helena, MT 59620- 1800

28 February 2005

ABSTRACT

An aerial survey for black-tailed and while-tailed
pniihe dogs ( Cy /iHirryj tti*fwu'iatttts t C. ffttrurus)
was conducted in southeaster! Montaia during
200i. A few blocks of Federal land and 2 Indian
Reservations with recent prairie dog mapping
data were not inclided in ihe survey. Areas with
black-tailed prairie dogs were searched by flying
parallel transect lines on odd numbered minutes
of latitude. Southern Carbon County was
searched for white-tailed prairie dogs by flying to
known colonies and then searching similar
adjacent habitat. Approximately 1 35 hours of
aerial survey effort was expended to cover the
survey areas. A total of 1 .790 black-tailed
prairie dog colonies was found. About 45'.f of
the black-tailed prairie dog colonies were
estimated to be less than 10 acres in size while
less than 2*4 of the colonies were larger than an
estimated 320 acres. Prairie dog colonies were
not evenly distributed acrossihe survey area, but
instead, complexes of colonies were grouped in
distinct geographic areas. Seven new while-
tailed prairie dog colonies were fotnd during the
survey, but ground based observations will be
required to verify that these colonies arc active.

INTRODUCTION

The status of black-tailed and white-tailed prairie
dogs in Montana has been a concern since the
appearance of sylvatic plague stalling in the mid-
1980s (FainaWcsi 1999). A surve> for black-
tailed prairie dogs at that time suggested there
were over 100,000 acres of prairie dog occupied
lands and more than 700 known colonics
(average colony si/ e 143 acres) (Campbell 1989).
A survey in the late 1990s found a minimum of
66,000 acres and IJ50 colonies! FaunuVY est
1999). A major problem encountered in this
latter survey was obtaining permission to map
prairie dog colonies on private land, and
obtaining permission to cross private land to map
prairie dog colonies on public land.
Approximately halfofthe landowncradid not
permit access to their land or to cross their Jand.
Prairie dogs were generally viewed by private
landowners as a range resource problem, and
they did not want government conservation

agencies knowing what was on their land and
how they chose to manage praihe dogs. The
attempt by conservation groups to have the
black-tailed prairie dog listed as a Federally
protected threatened species further exasperated
the access problem. Aerial surveys represent a
simple solution tolhc access issue because they
provide a means to inventory wildlife without
infringing upon private property rights, and they
make all land equally accessible.

Aerial surveys for prairie dog colonies have 3
distinct advantages overground based surveys.
These advantages are: I) increased visibility of
the landscape, 2) access issues are resolved , and
3> large areas can be surveyed in a relatively
short period. A majordisadvantagc of aerial
surveys for prairie dog colonies is thai it is
difficult to estimate the area occupied by praihe
dogs as compared to ground based mapping with
GPS. This problem can be partially resolved by
follow-up ground based mapping of prairie dog
colonies for which t here is legal public access, or
where landowncisare willing to cooperate with
prairie dog inventories. Through ground based
mapping, a mean and standard deviation of
prairie dog colony size can be developed to help
interpret colony size estimates made during aerial
surveys, tn 2004. an aerial survey of
southeastern Montana was conducted todevelop
acomprchensivedisthburional map for black-
tailed and white-tailed prairie dogs. This report
describes r he methods used roconducr I he aerial
survey and summarizes the results of the survey

METHODS

The purpose of this aerial survey was to locate
black-tailed and white-tailed praihe dog colonies
in southeastern Montana, and to provide a map
of colony locationsthat would represent a
relatively complete inventory of active coloiies.
The study area consisted of 3 distinct survey
areas(Figurc lj. The primary survey area
extended from the Montana/Wyoming stale line
north to the Charles M. National Wildlife Refuge
(CMR) /Missouri River and from the
Montana/North Dakota and South Dakota slate
lines west loihe line formed by Highways 87. 19,
and 191. However, the primary sirvey area was

modified as follows. Areas wiih recent aid
relatively complete prairie dog colony mapping
were not surveyed. This included ibe Ashland
Ranger District, the Crow and Northern
Cheyenne Reservations. Powder River County.
southeastern Bighorn County and thai portion of
iheCMR south of ibe Missouri Rivcr/Fon Peck
Reservoir. In addition, prcviois prairie dog
surveys had found very few colonies in Dawson,
McConc, Richland and Wibaux Counties and
much of i his area was 101 sirveyed in order 10
locus the survey effort 01 other areas known to
contain significant prairie dog popilatiois
outside the primary strvcy area. However,
wiihii ibis area, terraces of the Yellowstone
River between Glendive aid Sidney were
surveyed from the air. Another area within the
primary survey area thai was not surveyed was an
area within a 15 mile radius of 1 he Billings
Airport ihat wasdcsignaicd by the Federal
Aviation Administration as controlled airspace.
The secondary blackmailed prairie dog survey
area included land southwest and northwest of
Roundup in Vellowstoie, Wheatland. Goldei
Valley Stillwater, and Musselshell Counties.
This area was added to the survey effort as lime
permitted because prcviois ground based prairie
dog mapping efforts suggested ihat this area
contained numerous prairie dog colonics.

While-tailed prairie dogs occur in Montana wiih
limited distribution in southern Carbon County.
Ai the lime of this survey, only 6 known white-
lailcd prairie dog colonies wen: documented in
southern Carboi Cointy. This was less (ban half
the number of the while-tailed praihedog
colonies found duriig an inventory of Carbon
Couniy in the late !970s(Flath 1979). My
survey lor while-tailed praihedog coloiics was
in those areas of soul hern Carbon County where
there bad been previous documental ion of white-
tailed prairie dogs. The primary and secondary
black-tailed prairie dog sirvey areas and the
wbite-iailed prairie dog survey area air shown in
Figure I.

A Cessna ISO was used to fly cast-west oriented
iranseci lines within the primary black-tailed
prairie dog survey area. The transect lines were
down on odd numbered minutes of latitude
starting at 45* 01 N< 1 mile north of the

Montana/Wyoming state line), and proceeding
north up 10 47* 49* N. hut not going north of the
CMR. Transects lines on odd numbered minuies
of latitude were approximately 2 miles apart. A
dash- mourned Garni in GPS IV was used to keep
the plane 01 ibe 1 raised lines and to identify
ends of 1 he transect line. The plane was flowt
150-300 feel above ground level and cruised at
aboui 135 mpb. The pilot and 1 observer each
viewed forward and oui their respective sides for
prairie dog colonies. When a prairie dog colony
was spotted the plane wascinrlcd ovcrthe
colony, and a latiiude/longiiude coordinate
waypoint was recorded with aGarsiin I2XL
GPS unit. For each colony, an estimate of colony
size (acres! was recorded. These were gross
estimates and generally were recorded as follows:
1.5. 10.20,30.40,60.80, 100, 120, 160,240,
320, 480, 640, and 1.000 acres. These estimates
were made in order to establish ihe relative
abundance of various pmirie dog colony size
classes, and not 10 provide an accurate
accounting of total prairie dog acreage. Other
information recorded for pmirie dog colonies
included topographic setting and livestock poini
attraciants. Prairie dog colonics were determined
to be active if there was a definite vegetation
difference that demarcated the colony and/or
open burrows were observed ai prairie dog
mounds. If there was a quest ion about I he
activity stat is of a colony, ii was noted as
possibly being inactive.

In the secondary* black-tailed prairie dog sirvey
area. 1 he western boundary of the survey area was
established by conducting a cursory aerial survey
in eastern Sweet grass and Wbeailand Counties,
and northern Si illwaier County 10 determine the
western limits of the pmirie dog complex in this
area. The actual survey (hen proceeded as cast-
west oriented transect lines sjxiccd at odd
minuies of latitude within the area thai was
determined to contain prairie dog colonies. The
eastern boundary of the secondary survey area
was Highway 87, The survey proceeded from
the east end of the Lilile Snowy Mountains/Flat
Willow Creek south 10 the Molt/Big Lake area.
The data recoided were identical to that described
forthe primary survey area.

Within (he white-tailed pniine dog survey area,
ihc survey consisted of flying id previously
docninciicd colonics and searching the
sum>tnding area forevidence of othcrcoloiics.
White-tailed prairie dog colonics proved to be
more difficult to spot from the air because I he
colonies were smaller, had lower burrow
densities- and there were frcquculy 10 obvious
vegetation differences between inside and outside
of the colony. Activity status al while-tailed
prairie dog coloiies was Ixiscd on open burrows*

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Black Tailed Prairie Does

Thissirvey was conducted during March. April
and Scptcmbcr2004. Approximately 135 hours
of aerial survey time was expended to
systematically search the 3 survey areas. A total
of 1 .790 black-tailed prairie dog coloiies was
found during the aerial survey. This is a
minim tm count, since it was obvious during the
survey that smaller prnirie dog colonies could be
easily missed with a transect line spacing of
about 2 miles. Rath ( 1978) commented about
missing a 90-acrr colony when conducting an
aerial survey for prairie dog colonies using
i raised line spacing of 1 mile in portions of
Fallot aid CarterCounties. An estimate ofthe
percentage of colonies missed could be made by
re-survey iig a specific area using a transect line
spacing of I mile or less.

Ii addition to the distance factor contributing to
missed colonies, prairie dog colonies in some
areas such assihy overflow sites were very
difficult to observe 1mm the air. Prairie dog
colonies may be more observable duriig summer
than spring or full, but the limiig of this aerial
survey was based on availability ofthe plane and
pilot. The pilot. Brian Schwend (pcrs. commui.)
iv ported that prairie dog colonics arc very visible
from the air during winter when there is a light
snow fall followed by a few* days of clear skies to
melt the snow off of prairie dog tioinds.
However, such conditions may be ephemeral and
local, aid not suitable for a large scale aerial
survey. Harvester ant mounds in some areas
were sufficiently abundant to require close passes
ro verify that they were not prairie dog mounds.

This survey of southeastern Montana found
considerably more prairie dog colonics than the
state-wide prairie dog survey in the late 1990s
( 1 450 prairie dog colonics. FaunaVYcsi 1999).
However, the 1990s survey was not considered a
complete inventory, but was designed to rcsurvcy
of colonics found during the 1980s survey. The
1980s survey only found about 700 coloiies in
Montana cast of 1 10* West Longitude (Campbell
1989). Based on this current survey and a current
accounting of prairie dogs colonies on blocks of
Federal land and Indian Reservations not covered
in (his survey, there could be close to 3000
prairie dog colonies in Montana. Although there
are obvious problems with comparing previous
prairie dog surveys with the current survey
results because of diffcreiccs in met hods and
sirvcy areas, it does appear thai prairie dog
colonies in Montana arc at least as abundant as
during previous surveys, or possibly more
abundant.

The estimated si/e (acres) of individual black-
tailed prairie dog colonics was recorded for 1 .783
ofthe colonies, and these estimates whei totaled
equaled 89.863 acres. The estimated average
colony size for these 1.783 colonies was 50.4
acres. This is similartothe average colonysi/e
(49 acres) for prairie dog colonics mapped in the
late l990s(FaunaWcst 1999), but considerably
less than the average size (142 acres) for the mid-
1980s prairie dog survey (Campbell 1989). This
would suggest that the total acreage figure for the
current survey is probably a realistic estimate.
However, my acreage estimates were based oi a
visual estimate of si/e and should not be
considered a precise accounting of prairie dog
occupied acres in southeastern Montana. Based
on my experience of viewing a large number of
various sized colonies from the air. it seemed that
the si/e of smaller colonies (less than 20 acre)
could be estimated relatively easily, but as coloiy
size increased it became increasingly difficult to
view the eit ire colony at once, and that the
estimation error probably increased
proportionately with the size ofthe colony.
Consequently, my si/e estimation strategy for
larger coloiies was to place the colonies in broad
size classes (for example: smaller than a section
but larger than a half section = 480 acres).

Despite (be inherent problems of csiimat ing
prairie dog coloiy sizes, (be est Imuied colony
sizes can be grouped into si/cs classes (o provide
adbtributional analysis of colony sizes. About
45% of ihe black-tailed coloiics wcrecttimatcd
to be 10 acres or less (Figure 2j. while only 1%
(22 colonies) colonies were estimated to be
between .121-640 acres, and only 2 colonies
appeared to be 1.000 acres or larger. This prairie
dog colony size class distribution seems to be
typical for maty areas where prairie dogs ocetr
in u variety of geographic settings and under
multiple land ownership. Sizes of pntiticdog
colonies can be influenced by topography,
vegetation, control efforts. and plague. This
prairie dog colony si/c class distribution found in
this survey suggests that there were many small
and probably relatively new colonics in the
survey area, bui very few large and old colonics.
This was especially irae in the Tongue River
drainage system where prairie dogs were
recovering from a plague epizootic. My pilot
Brian Schwend (pent, commun,). who hud aerial
survey experience with much of ihe survey area
since the mid- 1 970s. sated thai ihere were more
and larger prairie dog colonies in the Tongue
River area prior to ihe plague epizootic in the late
1980s and early 1990s, but lhai the prairie dogs
have been increasing in recent ycats but h in
number and size of colonies. While mapping
prairie dog colonies in PowderRiverCouniy in
2003, t received similar comments from ranchers
that prairie dog colonies had increased
substantially in size and numbers since 1996,

Prairie dogs were not distributed evenly
throughout the survey areas, but were instead
concentrated in specific areas(Figure 3). By far
the greater concentration of prairie dog colonies
was along the Tongue River and its tributary
drainage. Pumpkin Creek, a major tributary of
the Tongue River, seemed to support a large
ntmberof prairie dog colonies. Another major
concent rai ion of prairie dog colonies was north
of ihe Yellowstone River between Miles City and
Terry in Sand Crcckand CusterCreek, Oiher
significant prairie dog complexes were found in
northern Musselshell County/southern Pccroleim
County, nonherm SlillwaterCounty/nonhwestern
Yellowstone County, and northeastern Garfield
Coumy, Prairie dog colonies were foind

throughout most of the lower portion of ihe
Powder River drainage, but ai a considerably
lower density than the adjacent Tongue River
area. Another area of interest is western Rosebud
County /northern Treasure County. While the
density of prairie dog colonics in this area may
nix be as great as ihe Tongue River area, the
numberof colonics found was much greatcrthan
previous mapping efforts had foind, and this area
is known tosuppon mountain plovers both on
and off of prairie dog colonies.

In some areas, such as Carter County, prairie
dogs colonies occurred primarily as scattered
isolated colonies. The Campbell I l^ss^j survey
showed considerably more prairie dogs colonics
in nor hern Carter County in the mid-1980s
suggesting that prairie dogs had been
substantially reduced, A complex of prairie dog
colonies northeast of Hkalaka once contained a
single colony csimatcd tooccipy over 1500
acres <F lath 1978). and was the sile of Montana's
last known wild black-footed ferret population.
In 2004. 1 his complex of colonies was fotnd to
be reduced to a cluster of 9 small colonies. In
some areas, such as pans of Fallon County,
prairie dogs were virt tally absent. In this area,
Brian Schwend (pers, common i showed me one
drainage where he knew prairie dogs formerly
existed, but we were unable to find any active
colonies. In these areas where prairie dogs had
been eliminated, ii appeared that suitable prairie
dog habitat was restricted lo valley bottoms, and
thai tndcrsuch confined situations prairie dogs
may have been eliminated through a combination
of poisoning and agricultural development ,
Upland sites in these areas were characterized by
rolling hills dominated by graces, and because
prairie dogs were virtually absent from this
habitat, it is assumed that this upland habitat in
extreme eastern Montana was only marginally
suitable for prairie dogs.

Over half (54%) of the prairie dog colonics were
foind in valley bottom lands and terraces of
major drainage. About 39% oft he prairie dog
colonies were located in upland tolling prairie,
and 7%: were found on level well defined ridge
tops. Reservoirs were found at I4*.f of the
colonies, and windmills and wells were found at
2% of the colonics. About VA of the colonies

were located on or next to agricultural Kind.
Ranch b cad quart era. old homesteads, livestock
feeding sites and corrals were found on or text to
about 5 ( i of the prairie dog colonies. Cattle and
pronghorn were each observed in about 2'1 of ibe
prairie dog colonics. A sage grouse lck was
foutd in 1 colony, but generally we were flying
loo bigb 10 consistently observe smaller wildlife
species.

While-Tailed Prairie Dop

While-tailed prairie dogs in comjxtrison 10 black-
lailcd prairie dogs live at a lower density within
(heir colonics, and consequently their colonies
are not as obvious because of dispensed mounds
and lesser in pact on the vegetation (Tilcston and
Lechleitner 1966). In Montana, .ill known white-
tailed prairie dog colonies are small. Mapping of
6 known while-tailed prairie dog colonies in
2003 resided in only a total of 1 19 occupied
acres and an average colony size of aboil 20
acres. Based on the small colony size, dispersed
mounds. and minimal vegetation impacts, it was
assumed that whiie-lailcd prairie dogs would be
difficult to detect f mm the air. Consequently, the
aerial survey lor while-tailed prairie dogs
involved Hying to each of the 6 known colonies
and observing iheirappcarance from the air aid
then searching similar habitat in the surrounding
area. Problems with the aerial survey technique
were noted at most of the known colonies* 1)
Generally, only a few mounds in a colony were
clearly visible from the air, 2) because of the
surrounding mountainous terrain, it was difficult
to fly low enough to verify open burrows at the
mounds. .1) harvesterants were abundant in most
of the whkc-tailed prairie dog habitat and their
mounds were easily confused with prairie dog
mounds, and Ji there were virtually no vegetation
differences that could be seen from the air to aid
in detecting colonies. These pioblems meant that
the only way to find a small colony would be to
fly directly overthe colony at low altitude.

Despite these difficulties. I was reasonably
cenain of having found 7 new white-tailed prairie
dog colonics. Figure 4 shows the location of 7
new suspected prairie dog colonics and the
location of 6 known active colonics. The new
colonies were named for an adjacent geographic
feature and they arc as follows: 1) Bowler Flat , 2)

Gyp Spring. 3) Cottonwood Creek, 4) SilvcrTip
Ridge, and the 5-7) Washoe complex. The
Bowler Flat colony was located at the west end
of a of a large wheat field and just noil h of an
abandoned farm house. This appeared lo be an
agriculturally disturbed site. Several active
burrows were olwcrvcd. We specifically
surveyed this site based on a report given loihe
Bureau of Land Management by a long-term
resident of ibis area (Jay Parks. BLM Biologist,
pen*, commun.). The Gyp Spring colony
contained a few active burrows almost on the
Montana/Wyoming state line. A similar small
colony appeared to be located nearby in
Wyoming. These colonics were located in
undisturbed native sagebrush habitat The
Cottonwood Creekcolony was located on a large
flat west of Cottonwood Creek, and appeared to
be a very active colony with many open burrows.
This site had scattcd shrubs but may have been
previously cleared of shnbs. The SilvcrTip
Ridge colony was situated between an irrigation
ditch and SilvcrTip Ridge, and appeared to
contain only a few active burrows. A portion of
thesile was disturbed by construction oft he
irrigation ditch. The Washoe complex appeared
to be a series of 3 very active colonies in
mountain foothill grassland habitat. One colony
was located on a drainage terrace next to a stock
watersitc. This was the only white-tailed colony
where vegetation differences between inside and
outside of I he colony clearly demarcated the
colony boundary. From the air.thiscolony
visually appeared to be similar to the
appearance of a black-tailed prairie dog colony.
The other 2 colonies weir located on relatively
steep grassy hillsides similar to the Robert son
Draw colony.

In addition to these colonies, there were several
other sites where we observed mounds and open
burrows that could have been prairie dog
colonies, but these also cotld have been ant
mounds or badger burrows. All these sites
including the 7 sites thai arc most likely lo be
colonies need to be checked on the ground during
a period of the year when the prairie dogs are
active. Until these sites are verified on ihe
ground . it is inappropriate to draw conclusions
about these possible prairie dog colonies.

I llmmv I. Map of southcasicrn Montana showing Ibc primary and secondary black-
lailcd prairie dag survrv areas, and the while-lailcd prairie do c survey area.

PRAIRIE DOG COLONY SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTION

QQO -.

800-
700-

ffi 600-

3 500-

U. 400-

a 3oo-

Z 200 -

100-

n m

I I I I I I I I

1-10 11-30 21-40 41-80 80-160 160-320 321-640 >640
COLONY SIZE CLASS (ACRES)

Flyurt' 2. Distribution of prairie dog colony size class for 1,783 black-tailed pruric
doc colonics found during* an aerial survey of eastern Montana in 2004.

I iLHirv 3. Map of southeastern Montana showing the location of black-tailed and white
tailed prairie dog colonies found during the aerial survey. Whitc-lailcd prairie dog

Figure 4 + Map of southern Carhon County showing the location of confirmed while-
tailed prairie dog colonics (X"s) and suspected white-tailed prairie dog colonics (flags).

REFERENCES CITED

CampbelET.M. 1989. Prairie dog coloiy
location surveys and black-footed searches u
Montana Pp 1-12. In: The Prairie Dog
Ecosystem: Managing For Biological Diversity.
Montana BLM Technical Bulletin No, 2. 55pp.

FuuiaWca. 1999. Status of lie blackand white-
tailed prairie dogs in Montana. Lnpubl. Rpt. MT
Fish Wildlife and Parks. Helena. 33pp.

Flaih\D.L. 1973. Black-footed ferret inventory*
and management development plai for

southeastern Montana,
and Palis, 10 pp.

Montana Fish Wildlife

Flatk.D. 1979. Statusofikc wkitc-iailcd prairie
dog ii Montana. Proc. Montana Acad. Sci.
38:63-67.

Tilcson. J.V.and R. Lechlcitncr. 1966. Some
comparisons of the black-tailed and white-tailed
prairie dogs in ionh central Colomdo. Am.
MidFNal. 75:292-316.

SUCTION 4

MONTANA SMALL MAMMAL SURVLVS IN SAGEBRUSH HABITATS

MONTANA SMALL MAMMAL SURVEYS
IN SAGEBRUSH HABITATS: 2003 and 2004

Prepared by

Graham G. Frye

POBos I86.Choteav.MT. 59422

Email: ggfiyc@ rtnf-inh.org

Phone: (406)466-5498

Prepared for

Montana Natural Heritage Program
15 15 East Sixth Ave.
POB 201800
Helena. MT 59620- 1800

December 2004

INTRODUCTION

Sagcbrish habitats have drawn substantial
attention during the past decade as (key have
become increasingly sparse, degraded . and
fragmented. Il is estimated I bat 50-60% of native
sagcbrish sieppc in North America has cither
been convened to exotic annua) grassland or has
exotic annual grasses in its indcistory (West
2000). This loss of habitat may be detrimental to
species associated with sagebrush. Some
sage brash -associated species have been listed or
petitioned for listing inderthe Endangered
Species Act asa result of this habitat loss(e.g.
sagc-giousc, Centtxrcercu* spp.: the CoJnmbia
Basin population of pygmy rabbits, Brachyht&us
idahoemis). Sagebrush associated bi ids have
received the greatest amount of attention, hut
more poorly known species may deserve similar
concern. Minimal attention has been given to
small mammals associated with sagebrush
habitats, and therefore little is known of the
effect of sagebrush habitat loss on these taxa.

Foir species of small mammals associated with
sage brash habitats in Montana currently appear
on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's
Species of Concern \i&: Sf*rex prehfeL Sorex

nantiMi St/rex merritttni* and Petofctuithta fxtnrus*
Few specimens of these species have been
collected in Montana. However, little effoit has
been made tostidy these species in the state and
the concern over their status may be due simply
toa lack of information. This project isintended
to provide information on the distribution of
these and other sagebrush associated small
mammals in the state of Montana

The objectives of this pmject as outlined by
Carlson (2002) are as follows:

1) Document the distribution of sagebrush
associated small animals in sage habitats
throughout Momana.

2) Better define ihe range and status of these
species in Montana

3) Relate sage associated small mammal
distribution and relative abundance to
vegetation stricture and dominant plant
species.

4) Establish a network of point coint sampling
stations for moniioring of sage associated
small animals and gal her baseline data

METHODS

I conducted small mammal surveys in sagebrush-
dominated habitats in Beaverhead. Carbon,
Custer. Garfield. Petroleum. Powder River-
Powell, Prairie, and Valley counties (Appendices
I and 2) from Jine through Octobcrof 2003 and
2004, The Montana Nam ml Heritage Program
Zoologist selected regions of the state to be
surveyed prior to the field season. In 2003, 1
selected ten sites within those regions, using
relatively dense sagebrush and accessibility (i.e.
proximity to load, public land ) as primary
criteria. Five of those sites were visited once and
five were visited twice. In 2004, nine sites were
visited once and five sites were visited twice. I
ran 4traplinesdiring each visir for3 consecutive
nights. Traplincswcrc composed of 10 stations
spaced 10 m apati in a linear fashion. One
Sherman live trap and one museum special snap
trap were placed at each station along with an
orange flag marking the station. Snap traps were
bailed with peanut butter. Live traps were bailed
with a mixture of oats and a commercial biirJsecd
mix (composed primarily of millet. mik>. and
sunflower seed). A small piece of synthetic
insulation was placed in each live trap for
bedding. At sites that were visited twice, I also
set 2 pir fall arrays during ihe initial visit and
removed them ar ihe end of ihe final visit.
Additionally, in 2004 t set pitfall arrays at 4 of
thesjiesihat I visited only once. Ar those sites. I
removed the pitfall arrays approximately 3-4
weeks after set ting them. Pitfall arrays consisted
of one cylindrical can. measuring 155 cm in
diameter and 16 cm in dcjxh.at the hub of 3
masonitc fences positioned approximately 120
degrees apart. At ihe distal end of each fence
was one plastic cup measuring 9 cm in diameter
and 13 cm in depth. The can and cups were
placed in holes such that they did not protrude
abovethe ground. The can and cups were filled
one-third to one- half full with antifreeze. Snap
traps and live traps were sci in I he evening and
checked and closed in ihe morning after sunrise.

t identified and measured all captured animals
before releasing ordisposing of them. Animals

captured live were marked on the venter with ;i
black permanent marker in order 10 preveii
double counting. Measurements recorded were:
total length Hip of lose to cid of venebral
column in mil), (ail length (base of tail 10 end of
vertebral column), hiidfooc length (heal to end of
longest claw Land mass (sec Korcsman 2001a).
Measurements were touided tothe nearest
millimctcrorgram. t tentatively identified Sowx
species for this repon. bm all Sorex specimens
will be subniiiied tothe Montana Natural
Heritage Piogram Zoologist for verification.
Sagebrush vegetation at each site was measured
along the length of each of the iiraplines
(Appendix 6j. Along each traplinc. t measured
the intercept length of each sagebrush plant and
the maximum height of each of those plants. The
total sagebrush-intercept length along each
trapline was divided by the length of the trapline
1 100 mj id arrive at a measure of sagebrush
density.

Sotrx.30%); Unidentified Sorexsp., 0.15%;
Lzmmiscus curtains. 0.15% (Appendix 3).

At 01c site ( Powder R i ver site. Custer conni yi in
2003 both p ii fall arrays were disturbed prior to
my second site visit. Oily two of the eight pits
remained intact and there were no small mammal
captures in those. It is unclear whether that was
the result of wildlife/livestock interference or
human tampering . but the type of disturbance
suggested that it was not merely the result of
passive interference such as wind or
precipitation. I thus excluded those pitfall arntys
f mm the results.

Much morphological variation wasobscrved for
Pcnmtytctu itumitulattis (Appendix 5). This was
largely due tothe captures of various age and sex
classes (i.e male, female, immature, adult). No
other species was captured in sufficient quantity
to assess variation in morphology.

RESULTS

Ii 2003 . 302 small mammals comprising 8
species were captured during 3600 bail trap-
nights (Lc. Sherman live-traps and museum
special snap traps) and 230 pitfall I rap- nights
(Appetdix4). 292 (96.69%) of the 302 small
mammals captured were Peromymu
mairiculaius. Noothcrspeciesaccountcd for
more thai 1% of total captures: Tamos i n f nfc n if i,
0.66% ; PerognalhtiMfasciatUM, 0.66^ : Mrcnrius
numU/ruts . 0.33% ■; Microfus [*erinxxivam\'Mt.
0.33**; Sorex meniami, D33 t h\Stmx
nu?trttcifiu\+ 0.6611 : jV..\'i.v. \..-;t i curfattis* Q.33%'
(Appeidix 4).

Ii 2004. 675 small mammals comprising 8
species were captured during 4560 bail trap-
nights (i.e. Sherman live-traps and museum
special snap 1 raps) and 444 pitfall 1 rap- nig his
I Appeidix 3). 636 (94.22%) of the 675 small
mammals captured were Pcramyscu*
ntamcuiattts* Tt/mias mittimus and Di[Mtdtntt\s
f>rdH each represented over 2% of total capures
(2.07% aid 2,52% respectively). No other
species accounted for more than 1** of total
captures: Pent&itatitus fatciatus* 0.15%;
Microlttx mtmlartui 0.59% : Sojtrx mtrtitimi*
0.15% (actually 2 specimens, not ai UNIDs

Artemisia tridcttfata and Artemisia carta were the
pniKiiy sagebrush species encountered.
Sagebrush densities varied both between and
within sites. The maximum sagebrush density
observed on a transect during 2003 was at the
CoalCreeksite in Prairie County (40.03%) and
the minimum was at the Triple site in Valley
County (1 2.79%:) (Appendix 6). The maximum
mean height observed was on at raised at the
Coal Creek site in Prairie County (76.33 cm) and
the minimum was at the Dog Creek site ii Valley
County (30.14 cm). The maximum sagebrush
density observed on airansect during 2004 was at
the Brown's Gukrh site in Beaverhead County
(4351%) and the minimum was at the Silvcnip
Creek site ii Catton County (10.1%) (Appendix
6). Tie maximum mean height observed during
2004 was also on airansect at the B town's Gulch
site (1 39. 1 7cm) and the miiimum was at the Red
Butte site in Beaverhead County (37.93 cm). The
only species captured in sufficient quantity for an
analysts of habitat associal iois based oi recorded
vegetal ioi characteristics was Penunyseus
iritirirciiiiitm. As in 2002. t his species was
encountered in such ubiquity that an analysis
would be fruitless (Carlson 2002). Moreover, this
species is already knowi tooccurcommonly in
nearly all Montana habitats (Foresman 2001 b).

DISCUSSION

Pfrfjfuyscus manicuittltts is one Of I he most
abundant and widespread small mammals in
Noith America and occurs throughout ihc stale of

Montana (Foresman 2001b). This species is
easily captured with bailed I raps and thus
accounted forthe vast majority of captures
during this study 196.69<* in 2003 and 94.229- in
2004). During ibe 2002 sampling effort <hc
majority 0819) of capureswere also P.
trituiii'uittitii K arlson 2002), however I his is a
substantially smaller proportion of the local
captures than I observed during 2003 and 2004.
Major population fluctuation arc not
characteristic of this species, however
environmental chaigcs can cause variation it
numbers bctwcci years (Forcsmai 2001 b). It is
uncertain whether I he observed difference in
proportional l\ mmucutatUM captures reflects
temporal changes in antual abundance or a
spatial difference between sampling sites.

Although other species were only infrequently
cajxurcd. among these wcreteiiaiively 3 Sorcx
species, one of which appeals on the Montana
Natural Heritage Program's Species of Concern
List, Sorwxmerriam is a species of concern and
apparent ly associated with sagebrush habitats in
Montana. Three 5. mmrntmni specimens were
collected during this study. Forcsmai (2001b)
repotted only 9 specimens previously collected
t he state. 2 Somt nojioWm specimens were
also collected during the 2003 survey. Three of
t hese specimens represent county records in
Montana, 5. merriami wasdoctmentcd forthe
first time in Powder RiverCounty and the 5.
montu-olus specimens were documented forthe
first time in Valley and Garfield Counties. The
occurrence of 5. mernam in Powder River
County was previously considered probable, but
undocumented according toForesman (2001 bj.
However, it was not considered probable for 5.
moitiicohii tooccui in either Valley or Garfield
CouQiiestForesman 2001b). Additionally. an

unidentified Sorex species was cajxurcd in 2004.
Because of the paucity of occurrence information
available for 5. mcriiamx, it is considered rare in
t he state of Montana (Foresman 2001b).
Howcvcrjhis may be due simply to ihe lack of
effort to locate and study Sore* species across

much of the slate. Nouctheless, the current status
and lack of informal ioi on this and other Sm-r.x
species in Montana warrant further investigation
into their distribution and abundance.

The only other eicounters of interest were 2 live-
captured LzmmiscU* cilrlatUs. One of these
capurts occurred at Ihe2003 Bannaeksite in
Beaverhead county and one at the 2004
Eightccnmilc Peak site in Beaverhead county.
The; species has previously been documented in
Beaverhead County (Foresman 2001 b) and is not
considered a species of concern. Howcver.thesc
two encounters are significant ii that they mark
the only captures of the species during the three
years (2002-2004) of this project (sec Carlson
2002). despite the species kiowi association
with sagebrush habitats in Montana.

/Viy'iMvn-iu/fHi","(nOu[irslD poltlOUSof

southeastern Mouiana in sympairy with its
congener. PenmyscUi mamadaftis. Due to the
overlap in morphological characteristics! hese
species eat be difficult to separate in the field
(Foresman 2001a. Foresman 2001 bj. P. iueeapui
is associated with structurally complex habitats
and canopy cover (Foresman 2001b). Riparian
areas with deciduous coiionwood {P^mlx* spp.)
forests arc used ii southeastern Montana
(Hoffman and Panic 1968. Foresman 2001b).
During the course of this study. I did not observe
Penmtncux specimens that exhibited the
characteristics of P, /j#r<vj/w*. Also, only oic
site appeared to have appropriate habitat within
the range of the species, and I here only
marginally so ( Powder Rivcrsite, Custer
County). The difficulty of distinguishing
between these species leaves open the possibility
that some /*. faecopus specimens were
mistakcily identified as /'. mamaiiatUM in the
field at that site. 1 believe the potential for such
confusion to be minimal however, both because
of the habitat sampled and the lack of specimens
exhibiting morphological traits characteristic of
the formcrspecies. The Montana Natural
Heritage Program zoologist reached this
conclusion forthe 2002 sampling effort as well
and determined that all Pzromysezu captures

during that year were P, mamculauu { J. Carlson
pcrs. com mi.

The sagebrush stands I selected did noc always
have a high density and were often limited in
area die to the difficulty of locating accessible
sites within some regions. Hven when dense and
expansive sagebrush stands were located near
nmds ii some areas, the) often occurred on
privately owned land. In those situations I was
typically unuble to locale the landowner while in
the Held, and was forced to select less desirable
stands on public land for sampling. Also in some
cases, poor mad conditions resulting from
precipitation prevented me from accessing
preferable sagebrush stands < notably in southern
Valley County during 2003). However, tkc
sagebrask densities in 2003 and 2004 were
similar to (hose observed during the 2002 field
season (Carlson 2002, Appendix 6).

Additionally, the chances of capturing sagebrush-
associated reptile species on the Montana Natural
Heritage Program's Species of Coiccn list (none
of which were cajxired during 2003) might
increase with an increase in pitfall*! rapping
effoii. If more pitfall arrays were used at a
greater number of sites, the proportion of non>
/'■■.■ 'nvjt -ii* captures pei unit effort might

increase. In paiticular.capturcsoftkc poorly
know n Stmx species in Montana might increase.

LITERATURE CITED

Carlson J. C. 2002. Small Mammal Surveys in
Sagebrusk i Artemisia spp.) habitats. Montana
Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 7 pp.

Based on these results and my observations
during 2003 and 200-1, 1 recommend minor
changes in methodology for future field seasons.
PeromfMcUM manwuitttus is known looccurin
most habitats throughout the state of Montana
(Foresman 2001 b). This species has accounted
lor the vast majority of captures during all three
yeatsof thtssiudy. Because this information
contributes little to our understanding of the
distribution of sagebrush associated small
mammals in Montana, 1 suggest altering the field
methodology such that the likelihood of
cajxuring species of greater interest than /\
mamcidatus is increased. For example, in 2003
4W- |i=-t)of the non-/V™ittv«rw* species
captured, were captured in pitfall arrays.
Moreover. SQty (n=4)of the pitfall cajxu res were
non-/V/™twtw species, while only l*k <n=6) of
the bait station (i,c, Skcrman traps and snap
traps) captures weir nou~Pen>m?scux species.
Although 6OT < n=6)ol the ton- Pfnrmyst'Us
species were captured at bait stations, the effort
required to run these stations is substantially
grcatcrthan that required for pitfall arrays
becausetkey require attendance. Setting pitfall
arrays is lime consuming initially, but (key may
be left unattended for relatively long pciiodsof
time without decreasing their effectiveness.
Sormx species are among the most poorly known
sagebrish associates in Montana. All Sorex
cajxures during 2003 and 2004 In=5> were
captured in pitfall traps. These were the most
significant capturesduring 2003 and 2004.

Foresman, K.R. 2001a. Key toihe Mammalsof
Montana. University of Montana Publications.
Missoula. 92 pp.

Foirsman.K.R. 2001b. The Wild Mammals of
Montana. Special Publication 412. The American
Society of Mammalogists. 278 pp.

Hoffman. R.S. and D. L.Pattie. 1968. A Guide
to Montana Mammals: Identification.
Habitat, Distribution. and Abundance.
University of Montana Publications. Missoula.
133 pp.

West.N.E. 2000. Synecology and disturbance
regimes of sagebrush steppe ecosystems, p. 15-
26. In P. G. Entwistle. A. M. DcBolt. J. H.
Kaltenecker. and K. Steenkof |Eds. I.
Proceedings: sagebrush steppe ecosystems
symposium. USD! Bureau of Land Management
Publication BLM/ID/PT-001001+1 150. Boise.
ID.

APPENDIX I. SITE MAP -SAMPLING LOCATIONS

••

iiu: r.'il>

APPENDIX 2: SITE DEFINITIONS

StJft LH

SUfLLoofl

End-Lat

End-LOnq

B s v (m]

C Oun If

Oitas SarapJad

RA \- 1

4S IT 1604'

It,' h6 10.52*

■i-, 13' \1 2-

112 56*10.70*

.•J CO

BEAVERHEAD

31 July- 02Au*f

B*.\*2

45 13* 1687*

112 56" 10.02*

45 13* 1X70*

11256 10.10*

2200

BEAVERHEAD

31 July- 02AUQ

BAH- 3

45 13* Ifiar

112 5? 18* 57*

45 13* 1370*

112 56 1660*

220f

BFA'/tKHEAD

pi July- 02 Aug

84*4-4

4S 13* 16BS*

112 56*18.00*

4S 13' 'i S'

11256 18.23*

2300

BEA'/EKHEAD

ik»!,-o: j al>j

Traplina

314ft Lit

Start. Long

End. Lat

En d- Long

Eflvimi

C Oun fy

Pj Its 5ar-piod

3AS-1

4i sj ob :»■

105 42*05.56*

45 53*0663*

105 AT 04*20*

000

CUSTER

i2Aug-i4Aug

BA5*2

4^ S.f 08 01*

1 OS 42*03* 34*

4S s:j ::^ :;■-

105 42* 0630*

000

CUSTER

I2AUg*l4AuQ

Ki:-;-!

45 5T 07, 51*

105 42*00*54*

4SS304 2S*

105 42*08*61'

goo

CUSTER

l2Aug*l4Aua

BAS-4

4i s:f o&or

10542* 13X34*

4h 53' 01 *0*

10642* 14.10*

goo

CUSTER

E2Aug-i4Aug

TrapMna

SiarLLat

SUft_Loog

End* Lat

End- Long

E ; &v |r-|

County

Dale* Sarapiad

3K3-1

4541*54.47*

113 24*40.71*

4541*5250*

113 24*37.02*

1850

BEAVERHEAD

3Aur>5 Aufl 28 Aug- 30 AUfl

BIG* 2

45 41*54.01*

1 1 3 24* 40*87*

45 41*57.65*

113 24*38*31'

IS5C

SAVERHEAD

3AuO*SAug2BAii{j*30Aug

BIG* 3

4541' S-*OS*

113 24 41.58*

4^41 sr T' m

>1 13 24*43.03"

1850

BEAVERHEAD
BEAVERHEAD

3Auu*SAug 28Al|g-30Aug

BIG .4

45 41*54.47*

113 24*41*88*

4541*54.20*

113 24*46*50*

1850

3Auo-5 Aug 28 Aug- 30 Aug

BKDf-1

45 41*55.07*

113 24*40*32*

I8SI

BEAVERHEAD

3Aug*30AuQ

BlQOF-2

4S4T51 "6*

1 13 24* 35.20*

I860

BEAVERHEAD

?Auu*30Aug

Trnplina

SUM Lai

SttfLLoofl

End-Lat

End* Long

Eflvin-j

C oun If

Ditas Samplod

;oal*i

4* SO' 43 '4'

IDS '4 00*42*

46 SO 44 4&"

105 13 &S.08*

700

PRAtRE

l8Aug-20Aug

.gal -:'

46 SO" 44 88*

106 13* 55.42*

46 SO' 46 21*

ios -s 5i. or

'CO

ph;re

l8Aug-20Aug

.Gil- :?

46 SO' 46 04*

106 13" 40*0 r

46 SO' 43 64*

105 IT 45*76*

700

PRARE

l8Aug-20Aug

: g ai -4

46S0'4^0T

106 13*5686*

46 SO' 40 OS*

106 IT 53.78*

700

PRAtRE

iaAiij.20AiJj

TrapEina

SUM Lat

SUM Long

End Lat

End Long

Bev(re)

C oun ty

Di 1&g Sanaplfld

X>G-1

4? 55*50*20*

106 52*21*36*

4: -^ ::i \r

106 52* 1612*

700

■ Al L B Y

2 s:-; r pW2?5* pt: i BO : U20O 1 1

>OG-2

47 55* 55.57*

106 52* 12*74*

47 55*5844*

106 52* 11.37

700

al l t- y

2SS^pl-27Sfp1;1SOtl.20Otl

M)G.]

47 55* 58 84*

106 52* 12*40*

47 56* 00 25*

106 5? 1675*

700

ALL E Y

ZSS«pl.*:Scp1:18>D(.'*2COc.1

>OG-4

47 55* 57*72*

106 52* 13*45*

47 55*5880*

106 S2 18*16*

700

- ALL B Y

2S5rpf.2TSrpi:i8OcL20Ocl

X>GDF-1

47 55* 50.57*

106 52* 18*72*

700

AL L I- Y

25Scp«-20Oc1

X>GDF-2

47 55*57.01*

106 52* 14*20*

700

VALLEY

BE8eil4-20Oc1

Trapll-fl

SUM Lat

SUM Long

End Lat

End Long

eu v in)

C Oun ty

Dihin Sarrpiod

l-SLL-l

47 31* 1387*

106 56* 32. 1 1*

47 31* 11.04*

106 56*28.21*

8H0

-» ;ki El

i2Aug-i4Aug

HELL -2

47 31* 1201*

106 56' 32.73*

47 3t* 14*78*

106 56 3677'

850

3ARF ELD

12Auo-l4Aug

-ELL -3

47 31* 15.44*

106 56' 30.26*

47 31* ia66*

106 56 30*43*

850

5 ARE ELD

I2Al.^"4Al>j

Hr-U-i

47 31* 20 04*

106 56* 32.20*

47 31* l7.7fT

106 56*3146*

850

-» ;k* i-l d

I2A1I-.14AUJ

TrapHna

SUM Lat

SUfLLoofl

End-Lat

End* Long

E ; fl k . ! ,-_ .

C Oun Ty

Dilfic Sar^pidd

ORD*l

47 10*33114*

10645*06.27*

47 10*3208*

10646*01.73"

800

-» ;ki I-L ■}

'2ScpV24'icp1:1S-i:Ocl

JORD-2

47 10*3214*

106 44' SO*?4'

47 10*20.07*

106 45*01*48*

800

SAW ELD

22Sep1-246ep1:i5-170c1

ORD*3

47 10*3017*

106 44*50*70*

47 10*26 86*

10644*60.57*

8CK

GARFELD

22Sfpl-24Sfp1;1S*170<l

ORD-4

47 MT 27.7 3*

I0S44 58.82*

47 10*2a30*

10644*64*07*

800

GAR*£LD

22SrpW24S"pi:iS-lTOc|

ORDDF * 1

4' ig- 32 21*

106 45*02*81'

SCO

i art- El :;

22Sep1-170c1

QRDOf *2

4? 1^ 2868*

106 45*07*24'

800

GARf ELD

23&rp1-170c1

Trapllno

StJft LH

SM/LLOOQ

End-Lat

End* Long

EUV'.TTt)

; Oun ty

Dilfln Sarrpiad

POA.1

46 31 * sa ? s-

ios i» w.qs*

4fc 31 ET S"

>io& tv26.ss"

7 SO

CUSTER

2lAUd-?3Aua LQ£rp|.2l£cp1

POW-2

46 BT 5840*

10S IV 3170*

46 31*5675"

10S IV 27.30*

750 : US TEH

2 1 AUQ-23AUJ : 108 e pi2 1 St pi

POW.3

46 31*58 38*

10S IV 33: 17'

46 31*5643*

10S tV 20.27*

750

DUSTER

MAUa^lAua lOSrpLJIBrpI

POA-4

46 »rso ir

106 IV 26.72"

4b J202J4'

106 tV 25.06*

750

BUSIER

2lAUO-?lAua L0Srpl-2l6rpl

Trapli no

Start Lit

StarLLonfl

End- La t

End* Long

B s v (m]

Z Oun ty

Diton Sarrplot*

pump-i

4^4:' 14 HO"

IQS44' 14.81*

45 4Z" <b ^S"

106 44' 19.04*

050

^OWDER RIVER

'OWDgRRIVBR

il SAug- 1 7 Aug 16Se pi- 18Se pi

1SAU0-1"4U0 iSS^pHSSrpI

PUI.f-2

4^4:> 14 ' r

10*44 10.28*

4S42 16 H**

10S 44' 23.70*

oso

FU!.F-i

46 42* 1 183*

10544* 16.67*

4S42- 14.00*

105 44" 19.07*

050

'O'.'JDtsRRIYE-R

1 fiAUff- 1 7 Aug : 168 1 pi- 1 8S t pi

PUMP -4

4^4:- 1 1 ?v

ios44* iaos*

4*»42 H \2i:<-

105 44 :'i >35*

050

'OWDER RIVER
'O'ADER RIVER

1 5Auo> 17 Aug : 16Bc p(- 188 1 pi

PUMP PI

4*4Z 10.08"

10S44*29.18*

050

ISAiH>ISBrpl

PUI.FP2

4S4Z 1191*

10S 44*25.36*

050

'O.'JDERHIVER

l£AUa-185rp1

Traplin**

sun ut

Start Long

End Ut

Er>d Loon

Bavin)

; Oun ty

Dilas Sflmpfnd

mi»i

47 SO* 20 07*

10" OS" &9. IS*

47 SO* 10 84*

10" OS" 54. 10*

700

/ALLEY

l0OfW12Ot1

mi-2

4' 50' 30 «r

107 OS* 53.07*

47 SO* tOS7*

107 OS" 4828*

700 /ALLEY

L0Ocwi2Ori

mi-3

47 SO* 17.83"

10- ::^ 4?. or

47 SO* 10. SS*

107 OS" 47.20*

700 /ALLEY

I0O(W12Oc1

mi-4

47 SO* 17.21*

10" OS" 43.26*

47 SO* 1607*

10" OS" 47. 56*

700

/ALLEY

10OcW12Oc1

APPENDIX 3: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

-J *L/

ABOVE; Bannack Trap Site (Beaierhead Co,)

ABOVE: Bighiilr Trdp Site lBeu*erhead Co.)

ABOVE: Basin Trap Silr (Cmslrr Ok)

ABOVE: Coal Creek Trap Site iPrairieCo.)

ABOVE: Hclb Creek Trap Site (Garfield Co.)

MM >VE: JnrdanTrup Site iGmTurld Oi.l

ABOVE: Powder River Trap Stic (Cosier Co.) ABOVE: Pumpkin Creek Trap Sllc (Powder Rlvtr Co.)

LEFT: Triple Trap Site iVallcy Ciu)

APPENDIX 4: CAPTUI

tESUMMA

tap Trap Capfcjr

Bait Station Captures (Sh«rB»n/3i

COUNTY

SITE

PEMA PEPA PEFA ONLE MMO MPESOCISOME SOMO SOPR TAMI LECU TRAPNOHTS

BEAVERHEAD

BAt+NACK

24C

3EAYERHEAD

BtGHOLE

431:

CUSTER

BASNCPEEK

240

CUSTER

POWDERRIVER

480

GARF ELD

HELLS CREEK

240

GARF ELD

JO HI JAN

43C

*OWDERRrVER PUMPKN

480

PR4RE

COAL CREEK

24C

/ALLEY

DOGCREEK

480

/ALLEY

TRPLE

240

TOTAL

288

3600

Uttail C a pure*

COUNTY

SHE

PEMA PEPA PEFA ONLE MMO MPE SOCI SOME SOMO SOPR TAMI LECU TRAPNKHTS

3EAVERHEAD

HK-H:.:lh

V ALLEY

DOGCREEK

GARF EL D

JO HI JAM

»OVJOER RIVER

PUMP KM

"G'AL

230

Cuniuia ive Capt*ft9 (Combined

Pitfall and

Bait 91a Ion Capfcaras)

COUNTY

SITE

PEMA PEPA PEFA ONLE MMO MPE SOCI SOME SOMO SOPR TAMI LECU TOTAL

3EAVERHEAO

BANNACK

BEAVERHEAD

BIG HOLE

CUSTER

BASNCREEK

CUSTER

POWDERRIVER

GARF ELD

hlELLS CREEK

GARF ELD

JORDAN

»OVJOER RIVER PUMPKN

PRAF1E

COAL CREEK

/ALLEY

DOGCREEK

GALLEY
TOTAL

TRPLE

18
292

D
1

8
1

«l

303

- oi Grand Tom

OS SO

O t 00

Q66

0.00

■::. i <

::.:u

:: n

066

o + oo

O h 66

0.33

PEMA: P**rornysciJs rTMttttittfc;*: Dr*< MOUtt

PEPA: PavogiMfftu a parvus :Gicai Bow Poctolhaouat

PEFA: Porotpi Jt+iv i MSC.Wu *: Oti* **Hf d P OCh* 1 Mou»
ONlE: Onycto&mys tfucOgJiU*' Nortirrn Gr:issf>oj]f}* i tAwu

MMO: .Views montane*: Monastic voir
MPE: Mc^tispertis/taroetis: Meadow VcJe
LECU: LOOTfTTisoiJSCxrjftiftrrBawlifiah Vole

TAMt fjrn.U* mmmus: LeaslCfUHma*.
SOCI: Sor&x CiTflrotJ*: Matted Shrr ■

SOME: Soroy metiix*M: Mrrrcanvs Shrrw

SOMO: Sow mofJfCOlis:Dus*;y Shrew
SOPR: Sorfl i OfP&S PrtWe*s Srvew

APPENDIX 5: CUMULATIVE M< >RPH( (METRICS

Spociao

3»i

Tolil L*ncj»i (mm)

Tj.1 Lirgtd

;mm>

Hind loot Lii-qn (mm)

«M<g)

.ECU

AEAH

Spec 105

S»*

Toiil L*ng.fri (mm)

rail Length
;mm>

Hind loot Li~qn (mm)

unsto)

.T MO

■ T

■4^

HEAN

"4\J

3pedftS

St*

Total Lartgn (mm)

a.i Li~gtn

mm'i

Hind loot i£ngft (mm)

Mm<g)

,TPr

138

MEAN

13a

Spades

S»*

Total LAngn (mm)

Tail Lfirtgih

mm!

Hind toot Ling ti {mm)

Uw(g)

»AFA

130

>AFA

136

MEAN

133

615

16.6

4 24264068?

0' I06?H1

707 L06.B1

1 4U2I3S63

Elpecias

Sei

Total LftnqTi (mm)

Tail Lfirtgth

prn)

Hind toot lmoVi (mm)

Mass(g)

J rMi

■ : 43

202

>»:

rfEAN

14g41ii:iS4^

6£0< 60274

18.004 IOO&0

10.0102:307

12 0024883

7 G3SOSS1I

I 23148147 ■

i667BOI&2i

Specific

Sei

Total LAngri (mm)

Tail LHvglh

[mm)

Hind loot Lertgft (mm)

M*os(g)

SOME

* E AN

jpeCEAS SftK

Total Langti |mm)

ran Longin
nun)

-<ind foot Lanpfi <rnm) |*_™ ftfl

3QMQ

HOMO

■ t

EAN

33a

II 3U<Qe5

£12 1320344

I4I4213>62

0.707 I0B781

apeCEAO SAY

ran Laogm
rottl Longn (mm) (mm)

Aina loot Lengti frarn) Uaa= (g>

TAMI

rfEAN

1-14,1

1.41421

^QtO. tptil langTl rotia:Qiili3 V» ^ '

Sola; RfiCipturfld individuals noirnMsjjr id At sacond capluro

Fifl [isldlPSMA ictordt jc located in Ik Lfczitma Nafc ji al Held

Protpm ptojrCl 1

APPENDIX 6: STl'E VEGETATION SUMMARY

Site

Tnmncit

*- Sage Cove*

1 Mean Sago
Hoight(orni

Sir

Tr ansae t

% Sago Cover

Mean Sag*

Height Km)

B£t*iAGK

13 28

a:' b'

HEUS CREEK

26. JO

63 a

27 o:

6100

ir.so

■0 48

26 b ?

67.61

:it> h <

60 04

31.38

61.83

2367

6a 74

3ASN

18.63

61.00

JORDAN

I&80

37.67

21 8'

-.4 01

14.7 1

SI M

; j - s&

S3. 43

14.08

SI 41

:<s ji

£4 25

2a i6

S-St->>

BK1H0LE

26 bi

40 '4

POWDERRrvtR

2 J 5 J

60 "1

33.62

62.30

2X06

64.67

28 V

4^4'

27.77

■■^ -^

? i ?w

48.36

20.62

62 2€

IOAL CREEK

3210

60.88

PUMPKN

18.00

66.42

20. 40

60 03

186-

4' B6

3618

67. 6S

16.06

61.74

40.03

* n

.'4. 1 1

B7 £S

30GCREEK

20 4S

30.14

TRFLE

20. »l

6102

10.16

44 01

14.27

48.42

IS.25

4 A 11

1 408

-' 60

1346

36 85

12:79

saa*

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Surveys for animal species of concern in sage and grassland landscapes in Montana"

See other formats